Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peeblesshire

Commander Donaldson: asked the Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peeblesshire are not yet fulfilled.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): There are now no applications on the waiting list. In Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire and Peeblesshire there are respectively 17, 9 and 5 orders under inquiry or in course of being met.

Kiosks (Vandalism)

Mr. Cleaver: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider displaying notices in telephone kiosks drawing attention to the danger to emergency services resulting from acts of vandalism.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): Yes, Sir. I am having appropriately worded notices produced for display in telephone kiosks in selected areas. I am very much concerned that some kiosks are put out of action so frequently and I hope these notices will have a good effect.

Mr. Cleaver: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been over 1,300

cases of vandalism in Birmingham during the last year? Can he say to what extent emergency services have been disrupted?

Mr. Bevins: I am aware of the situation in Birmingham. Even so, the position there is not as bad as it is in the East End of London and in certain parts of Liverpool. To the best of my knowledge, the interference with emergency services has not been considerable, but the purpose of these notices which will be available in a matter of a few weeks is to remind people that in cases of illness or accident a telephone may be essential to members of their own family.

Mr. Ross: While appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's intent, may I ask whether he has any indication or any reason to believe that vandals would stop to read any such notice, or indeed whether it would be an invitation to some of them? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered using other means, such as the television, in schools and on the radio, to put over to these people and to parents the difficulties which might be caused by vandalism?

Mr. Bevins: The Post Office has already employed a considerable number of physical safeguards but, on the whole, they have not been effective. We are proceeding on the basis to which I have referred because I believe that even vandals are human beings.

Wycombe

Mr. John Hall: asked the Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones are outstanding in the Wycombe constituency.

Mr. Mawby: Leaving out of account the orders under inquiry or being met, there were 612 applicants waiting for telephones on 31st May last in the exchange areas serving the Wycombe constituency.

Mr. Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that I find this information a little depressing? We appear to be going backwards in my constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of applicants is greater now than it was in 1961? Would it not be far better to use the


money which is now spent on advertising and persuading people to use the telephone, on providing the necessary equipment?

Mr. Mawby: That may be my hon. Friend's view, but, in fact, telephones in Wycombe are being supplied at a record rate—over 2,600 since 1962—and the demand for telephones in this area is rising at the rate of 34 per cent. per year. If my hon. Friend will consider these figures, he will appreciate that we have been doing very well indeed in connecting all these extra telephones while keeping the waiting list down as low as possible. On the question of advertising, we find that it is valuable to us because there are many parts of the country where we can supply a telephone on demand.

Mr. Hall: May I ask my hon. Friend to realise that I appreciate only too well the efforts which the Postmaster-General has been making in my constituency, but does not he realise that the forecast of development and expansion in the Wycombe area has been wrong consistently and that there is likely to be a far greater increase now of people requiring telephones in the area? Will he look at the capital programme again in the Wycombe constituency? If he does, I think that he will find that far greater expenditure is needed even than there is now on the planning board.

Mr. Mawby: Yes, Sir. The moneys allocated to the area were increased by 18 per cent. for 1963–64 and there is a further increase of 17 per cent. for 1964–65. This is about as much as can be absorbed efficiently in an area where there is great competition for labour.

New Exchange, Arbroath

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Postmaster-General when the new Arbroath telephone exchange will be opened; if it will be automatic; and how many lines it is designed to deal with.

Mr. Bevins: The new Arbroath automatic telephone exchange will open in November and will cater, initially, for about 2,500 lines. S.T.D. facilities will be introduced early next year.

Sir J. Duncan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that we in Angus are on

the whole very well satisfied with him in his telephone operations, of which this is an example, but that we still want a new post office in Forfar? Will my right hon. Friend set about that before the election?

Mr. Bevins: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I do not think that his reference to a new post office arises out of the Question, but we will see what we can do.

Public Telephone, Mowmacre Hill Sub-Office

Sir B. Janner: asked the Postmaster-General why a telephone for public use has not been installed in the sub-post office opened recently on the Mowmacre Hill Estate, Leicester; and when he will have it installed.

Mr. Mawby: A telephone for public use has not been installed at the sub-post office because there is already a kiosk in a convenient nearby position. We have reviewed the case, however, and have decided to install a public telephone at the sub-post office as quickly as possible.

Sir B. Janner: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that when the plans for this sub-post office on the Mowmacre Hill Estate were passed they included a telephone booth in which a telephone was expected to be installed? Is he aware that I am glad to hear that now, at long last, he has decided to install a telephone there where it was refused before?

Mr. Mawby: It is true that there is a recess in the wall of the premises which was provided by the sub-postmaster and not by the Post Office. As far as we can find, we were not consulted about this recess but the fact that it is there means that we can fit a telephone in it now, and I will have one fitted.

Amplified Telephone Handsets (Charges)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Postmaster-General if he has now completed his review on the possibility of eliminating the extra charges to subscribers suffering from a degree of deafness for amplified telephone handsets; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mawby: My right hon. Friend is sorry that he is unable to eliminate the extra charge for this handset but is glad to be able to reduce it by one third, from 15s. to 10s. a quarter.

Mr. Pavitt: While I am grateful for the small concession to these unfortunate people, which amounts to 5s., may I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider this? Will the Minister consult with the Minister of Health to find out exactly what liability would fall on the Government if he were to extend the facility to other people who have the misfortune to be hard of hearing? As the Government already provide Medresco hearing aids, it would amount to little more if they provided this facility especially for elderly citizens.

Mr. Mawby: I can see the hon. Gentleman's point and that is why we have had a special look at the matter. On investigation I find that the difficulty is that there are people other than deaf people who find that this 'phone is an advantage, particularly in noisy surroundings, and so they order it. Therefore, one could not just deduct the cost and restrict it to those whom we feel should have it. The difficulty is that there would be a demand from all sorts of people who would find it an additional aid, but we should have no reason for using the normal revenue to allow them a specially reduced rental.

Mr. Wade: As there are great variations in the cost of providing subscribers with a telephone service according to the distance from the exchange, is there any objection in principle to providing these amplified telephone handsets in a comparatively small number of cases for the benefit of the physically handicapped and deaf to enable them to be linked to the telephone? Surely it would be in the interests of good public relations for the Post Office to assist subscribers in this way?

Mr. Mawby: Yes, Sir, and this is why, upon looking at the case, I have decided that we can reduce the rental from 15s. to 10s. a quarter. This will just about enable us to break even on this service. As I said earlier, this is not a matter in which we can say that only a certain group of people will

obtain the handset, because there are many people who find it an advantage but nevertheless do not require any subsidising.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm, as he told me in a letter, that local authorities already have power to provide loudspeaking telephone No. 5 for totally disabled subscribers under the National Assistance Act, and also that this applies not only to the capital cost of installation but to the rental charge?

Mr. Mawby: I could not answer that without notice, but we certainly work very closely with local authorities, the Ministry of Health and so on, to try to make certain that we give the best support possible to persons who are genuinely in need of such aid.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Telex Instruments, Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peeblesshire

Commander Donaldson: asked the Postmaster-General how many Telex instruments have been installed in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebleshire since 1959; and how many applications are now awaiting installation.

Mr. Mawby: Nine have been installed and there are no outstanding applications.

Commander Donaldson: My hon. Friend must be aware of the value of these Telex instruments. Is he making clear, and is there any advertising which puts before the public, especially the mills in my constituency, the value of these machines, and if not, will he see that some publicity is given to them?

Mr. Mawby: Yes, we do a considerable amount of publicity. In fact, there are now so many of these machines in use that they are publicising themselves and people who see them in operation are very quick to purchase them.

Crown Post Office, Shotts

Miss Herbison: asked the Postmaster-General when the Crown Post Office being constructed in Shotts will be in operation.

Mr. Mawby: By November, 1965.

Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the delays which occurred before the erection of this building? Does it not seem a long time to wait until November, 1965 before the building is in operation? Surely the building of one Post Office can be hurried up. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many workers will be employed in this Post Office and what will be the nature of the operations carried out?

Mr. Mawby: I was not happy about the time and we have been able to reduce it by four months. In reply to the second point, 11 men are employed on the site.

Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what I wanted to know was how many people will be working in the Post Office once it is in operation and what operations will be carried out in it as a Post Office?

Mr. Mawby: At the moment I could not answer the hon. Lady's Question, but I will certainly find the answer and send it to her immediately I have it.

Mr. Ross: What factors have caused the delay which evidently has dismayed both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison)?

Mr. Mawby: There were two main problems. One was the difficulty of getting anybody to tender at a price which we were prepared to consider reasonable. The second was the difficulty of the site which is very exposed and therefore involves a longer building period. These were the basic reasons which I was given. I was not happy about it, and, as I have said, we have now reduced the time by four months.

Stamps

Mr. Worsley: asked the Postmaster-General if he will ensure that supplies of normal-sized stamps are always available at post offices for members of the public who find them more convenient to use than special issues.

Mr. Mawby: Our standing instructions provide for this. If my hon. Friend knows of any instance in which there have been difficulties, I will gladly look into the matter if he will let me have details.

Mr. Worsley: I thank my hon. Friend but may I tell him of at least two occasions when I was unable to find ordinary-sized stamps? Will he make quite clear to post offices that they should be made available?

Mr. Mawby: Yes, Sir. Stocks of normal issue should be kept and should be available at any post office on demand.

Postal Deliveries, London Area

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied that daily postal deliveries in the London area are completed by the time laid down by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mawby: I very much regret that in some parts of London the first letter delivery runs beyond the scheduled finishing time of 9.0 a.m. because of shortage of postmen and staffing difficulties. We are doing our best to overcome these.

Mr. Smith: Yes, but is my hon. Friend aware that many of the main deliveries in the London area take place well after 9 a.m. when the majority of people have gone to work? Does he not think that it would make for much more efficient service if one delivery were cut out and we had only one and this was completed by or before breakfast time?

Mr. Mawby: The main difficulty is that we cannot start the first delivery earlier because night trains have not then arrived at the main termini. The first delivery is governed by the arrival of trains from different parts of the country carrying the mail which must be sorted and then delivered. This is our major problem.

International Geographical Congress (Special Stamps)

Mr. Steele: asked the Postmaster-General if the four stamps being issued on 1st July to mark the twentieth International Geographical Congress will be on sale in Scotland.

Mr. Mawby: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Steele: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the motif on these stamps is motorways and that so far we have no


motorways in Scotland? Surely it is an insult to Scotland to have these stamps on sale when we have no motorways.

Mr. Mawby: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has looked at only one of the stamps. That is the motif on one stamp. He will be interested in the other stamps, if he cares to purchase them, because one of them depicts Dounreay.

Young Persons (Day Release)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Postmaster-General how many persons between 15 and 18 years are employed by the Post Office; and how many are granted day release.

Mr. Mawby: 17,235 and 12,470 respectively at the last return in October, 1963.

Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the Henniker Heaton Report, why does not the Post Office make day release compulsory?

Mr. Mawby: We make day release compulsory for technical courses. While we still make day release for general education voluntary, we encourage it as much as we can.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Postmaster-General how many boys and girls, respectively, he employs in Scotland; and how many are allowed day release for educational purposes.

Mr. Mawby: At the last return in October, 1963, the numbers of staff under 18 were 592 boys and 396 girls, of whom 541 and 272, respectively, were having day release.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this is a much better record for day release than the deplorable record of private industry but that, nevertheless, it leaves quite a lot to be desired? What steps is the Department taking to pioneer compulsory day release for all these boys and girls, to give a much more imaginative lead to lagging private industry in this respect?

Mr. Mawby: As I have said, we make it compulsory for all technical education and we do all we can to make possible and to encourage young employees to attend for general education in day release. Obviously, there are problems in an organisation such as ours, which

works in diverse areas where educational facilities differ. We are trying as best we can, however, to make certain that as many as possible attend on day release.

Burntwood

Mr. Snow: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider redesignating the parish of Burtnwood as a single postal district, subordinate to the post office at Walsall, in the light of the present confusion which exists following the arrival of substantial over-spill population and private commercial interests, and the present split up of this parish between Walsall and Lichfield by his Department; and whether he will make such an arrangement, pending the publication of a town map and the building of a main Burntwood Post Office, using the designation Burntwood 1, Burnt-wood 2, Burntwood 3 and Burntwood 4 to indicate the Chasetown, Chase Terrace, Burntwood and Boney Hay areas of this substantial parish.

Mr. Mawby: I am not aware of any great confusion that exists with the postal addresses in the parish of Burntwood. It is clear that certain minor adjustments of present postal boundaries are called for. These are being arranged, and I have also asked for a longer term review of postal arrangements in the area to be undertaken.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we shall examine that proposal with great interest? Why is he so stubborn about the interests of this overspill receiving area? Is he aware that week after week I send him well-documented evidence of the rotten postal service in this area which results largely from the arrival of overspill and also from the planned increased industrialisation? Will the hon. Gentleman bear these factors in mind and read my suggestion in the way intended, because it was meant to be constructive?

Mr. Mawby: Yes, Sir.

Sub-Office (Burglary)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Postmaster-General why the Post Office required Mr. D. Phillips to pay £50 towards the loss incurred when his sub-office was robbed in March, 1961.

Mr. Mawby: The burglary at Mr. Phillips's office, which led to the loss of over £3,600 in cash and stock, was made easier by some lack of care in safeguarding the keys of the office and the safe.
Mr. Phillips was required to make good £50 of the loss in accordance with our practice in cases where there is contributory carelessness or negligence.

Mr. Prentice: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that Mr. Phillips was in the habit of giving the keys to his assistant, that he gave her instructions to take them home and put them in a safe place, and this she did regularly, and that he was found to be at fault only in the sense that he told her not to keep the keys in her bedroom in case there should be a burglary and she was subjected to attack during the night? Was this really unreasonable? Will the Minister compare the view taken by the Post Office in this case with the view taken by the joint stock banks in similar cases and see whether it is reasonable to demand of a man who was making a very modest living from his sub-post office a fine of this kind?

Mr. Mawby: These cases are always difficult, as the hon. Member will realise. In this case, however, it is important to point out that upon leaving the office the lady put the keys into her shopping bag and then left them in the pantry. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that an intended thief might have seen that take place. In our opinion, it contributed, or could have contributed, to the loss and, therefore, is was carelessness or negligence.

Sub-Postmasters (Losses)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Postmaster-General what rules are laid down as to the financial liability of sub-postmasters for thefts on their premises leading to a loss to the Post Office; if he will define the precautions they are expected to take; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mawby: Under Post Office rules a sub-postmaster is responsible for all losses caused through his own negligence, carelessness or error, and also for losses of all kinds incurred by his assistants. In burglary cases, we seek a contribution from the sub-postmaster only when it is considered that there has

been some lack of reasonable care. We give sub-postmasters general advice on security precautions, and head postmasters are always ready to discuss with them questions specifically affecting their offices. It would be impracticable to define precautions precisely to suit widely differing circumstances in some 23,000 sub-post offices.

Mr. Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the information which I have had from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters that on appointment a sub-postmaster is given no account of the rules that the Post Office expects him to observe in these matters and is not told that he will be financially liable in cases of this kind? Will there be a review of the whole arrangements in consultation with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters in the light of the Phillips case, which I have quoted in Question No. 32? May I again particularly ask the hon. Gentleman to compare the rules which are insisted upon by the Post Office with the rules of the joint stock banks, which on the whole seem to be more reasonable in these cases?

Mr. Mawby: A number of forms are given to a sub-postmaster on taking office and one is "Hints to Sub-Postmasters", which gives a lot of instructions and advice about how sub-postmasters should try to manage their business.

Mr. Bellenger: While not wishing to condone negligence anywhere, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that in all probability no insurance company would have refused to pay a claim on grounds such as those which my hon. Friend has mentioned? Is it not a little bit harsh, therefore, for the Government as employers to insist upon a condition like this?

Mr. Mawby: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Government as employers, which in this case we are not. The sub-postmaster acts as an agent for the Post Office and is, therefore, in a different position from a normal employee of the Government. One of the things which we have to make certain is that the sub-postmaster is at all times aware that he is responsible for the matters under his care. In cases of negligence, we


simply ask for a small contribution, which in relation to the amount of money lost is reasonably small.

Mr. Proudfoot: Can my hon. Friend say how many sub-postmasters take the wise precaution of insuring their stock—which, indeed, is the stock of the Post Office—against an event of this kind?

Mr. Mawby: indicated dissent.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Advertisements

Mr. Chapman: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Independent Television Authority broadcasts continue to be interrupted by advertisement periods without there being any break in the programme itself, one example, admitted by the Authority, being at 9.45 p.m. on 15th May; and, in view of the fact that such interruptions constitute a breach of the Television Act, if he will introduce legislation to enable the members of the Board of the Independent Television Authority to be prosecuted in the courts for such breaches of the law.

Mr. Bevins: It is the duty of the I.T.A. to enforce the provisions of the Television Acts. However, it tells me, as I understand it has told the hon. Member, that the incident referred to by him was a mistake due to a human error. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."

Mr. Chapman: Is not a principle at stake here? Is the Board to get off scot-free every time it allows the Act to be broken in order that contractors can make more profit? Why should the Board be treated differently from directors of ordinary companies who, when they break the Companies Act which covers their operations, are prosecuted, fined and possibly imprisoned? Why this difference when profits are being illegally made?

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member is making rather heavy weather of a small thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "The law."] I should like to put this matter in perspective. First, the Authority has freely admitted that an error was made. During the past 12 months advertisements have been inserted in about 5,500 intervals of which 2,500 were in natural breaks and 3,000 between programmes. During the whole

of that period there have been only three reported infringements.

Mr. M. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in the last week or two, in furtherance of this kind of breach, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, has not given an assurance to television companies that they will have extra advertising time to make up for the time which they may have lost during the period of the strike?

Mr. Bevins: I am sure that that is most improbable.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the natural breaks themselves are a form of abuse night after night? Is he aware that they were defined originally as breaks which would have occurred anyhow but not artificially made for the insertion of advertisements? Is he aware that breaks are made for the insertion of advertisements night after night and that this has gone on for years while he has been Postmaster-General?

Mr. Bevins: As hon. Members know, this has always been a vexed and tricky question, but Parliament has decided on more than one occasion that advertisements should be allowed during natural breaks. This is largely a question of the nature of the programme. In the programme referred to it was wrong to assume a break between ice-skating contestants, and this has been freely admitted.

Independent Television (Cigarette Advertising)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Postmaster-General what reply he has made to a letter from the Advertising Inquiry Council enclosing a memorandum setting out the arguments for banning cigarette advertising on commercial television.

Mr. Bevins: I will send the hon. Member a copy of the reply. It was made clear in the letter that I do not propose to ban cigarette advertisements on television.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the recent medical evidence, which is accepted by the Government, is it not fantastic that cigarette advertising on television should be running at a much higher level than before the Report of the Royal College


of Physicians and that the sum spent on it is constantly increasing? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again and take action at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Bevins: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, his assertion that expenditure has risen on this form of advertising because there is more advertising is not true. Expenditure has risen because the rates for television advertising have been increased. The amount of time devoted to cigarette advertising is less than it was during, I think, 1961 and 1962. This is a difficult question and it is widely recognised to be a difficult question, but the I.T.A.'s Advertising Advisory Committee, which has this subject under almost continuous review, has decided, for the time being at any rate, not to recommend a complete ban.

Sir T. Moore: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Council is making any recommendations about the advertising of motor cars since they are just as lethal as cigarettes?

Sir B. Stross: Would not the Postmaster-General agree that we could overcome this difficulty in another way? Would he consider insisting that each cigarette advertisement on I.T.V. should be accompanied by a warning that the average loss of expectation of life from smoking one cigarette is six minutes?

Mr. Bevins: I understand that the Authority is quite prepared to accept some of the films being prepared by the Central Office of Information in that direction.

Mr. Noel-Baker: On a point of order. In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

West Dunbartonshire

Mr. Steele: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to provide a low-power television station to serve West Dunbartonshire; and what is the estimated cost of such a station.

Mr. Bevins: I am at present considering the B.B.C. plans for further satellite stations. These would serve only a comparatively small proportion of the many areas still without proper reception.

I cannot yet say whether there will be a station to serve West Dunbartonshire. The cost of these stations varies according to such factors as the cost of the site and the area of coverage, and I am sorry that I cannot at present give an estimate.

Mr. Steele: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Helensburgh, the birthplace of John Logie Baird, a plaque has just been erected to his memory and that, while the residents of Helensburgh can look at the plaque, they are still unable to enjoy the fruits of his labour? In view of the fact that they are still unable to get B.B.C. 1 and that it is impossible for them to get Independent Television, would it not be a very good thing if they were able to get some reception before money was spent on B.B.C. 2 and colour television?

Mr. Bevins: A lot of people take the view that, technically, it is much easier to invent television as a service than to make sure that people get good reception. I agree that there are difficulties in Helensburgh, and I will undertake to let the hon. Gentleman know if there is to be a station there as soon as I can.

Television Reception, East Riding

Mr. Coulson: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the concern about the poor reception of British Broadcasting Corporation television in the Hull area; and if he will take steps to improve reception; and if he will give consideration to the introduction of a television licence rebate scheme in the area.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Postmaster-Geenral if he is aware that the reception of British Broadcasting Corporation television in the East Riding of Yorkshire is suffering again from bad interference this summer; and why remedial action has not been taken.

Mr. Bevins: I hope that reception in the Hull area will be improved when the new B.B.C. Band III television station at Belmont, Lincolnshire, comes into service about the end of next year.
The B.B.C. tells me that reception at Filey will be improved when its Scarborough Band III station comes into service next year.
I am afraid that it would not be practicable to vary television licence fees according to reception conditions.

Mr. Coulson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that this appalling interference on B.B.C. television in the summer months has been going on for several years and that there has been no improvement? As a result, there is considerable feeling among many of my constituents about the fact that they have to pay the same licence fee for one programme as many other people pay for three programmes. Would my right hon. Friend, therefore, reconsider the possibility of introducing a rebate scheme?

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that it is feasible to work out a scheme of the sort suggested by my hon. Friend, but I am fairly confident that when the new Belmont station is in operation—as I say, it will be in operation by the end of next year—there will be a very big improvement.

Mr. Daffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Bridlington, Flamborough and Scarborough areas television reception in summer between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. is too bad and that this has been going on for summer after summer? Interference now is quite chronic. Viewers are in a state of rebellion about having to pay the full licence fee. They know all the reasons for this because they have been given them year after year by the public relations officers of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. What they want is not promises about remedial action but action as soon as possible.

Mr. Bevins: I indicated in my reply that action would be taken as soon as possible in that part of Yorkshire.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I am wondering why the Table accepted Question No. 19 in exactly the same words as Question No. 22. I can understand—

Mr. Speaker: When we get there, some matter might arise. At present we are still dealing with supplementary questions to Question No. 18.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my screen looks distinctly woozy at weekends and has done for some weeks past? My interest is in

south-west England where reception apparently has been equally bad compared with reception in other hon. Members' areas. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind, too?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ross: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this interference and the concern about it is not limited to this area? It is widespread. We in the west of Scotland certainly have serious complaints about it. May we be given an assurance by the Government that something is being done, apart from the usual notice that we see stating, "Do not adjust your set. The trouble is due to foreign interference."? This is very annoying and there is a feeling that nothing is being done about it.

Mr. Bevins: I appreciate the force of what the hon. Gentleman said. I am in touch with the B.B.C. from time to time urging it to take all practicable steps to put this right.

Mr. Speaker: With regard to the point of order raised prematurely by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), the Question is on the Order Paper because it is in order. It is not out of order because other Questions are in the same terms.

I.T.A. (Withdrawn Programmes)

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to provide that, when the Independent Television Authority obtains the withdrawal of a programme to be transmitted by a programme contractor, the Authority should make the programme available to him for his own use and for the use of hon. Members.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to provide that, when the Independent Television Authority withdraws a programme arranged by a programme contractor, the Authority should make it possible for hon. Members to see it.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to require the Independent Television Authority to make available in the Library of the House of Commons the text of any broadcast the transmission of which it has vetoed.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to ensure that the Chairman of the Independent Television Authority must consult him before deciding to withdraw programmes on the ground of political content.

Mr. Bevins: The suggestions in the hon. Members' Questions seem to indicate a desire that I should intervene in programme content and administration. Successive Governments have firmly left this to the broadcasting organisations. Parliament itself sets the rules, as in the Television Acts for the I.T.A., and it is the Authority's responsibility to see that the rules are observed.
I do not consider it would be appropriate to legislate in order to require either the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. to give me recordings of programmes.

Mr. Mallalieu: Why should not Parliament find out how the censorship of these programmes is being carried out? Has the Postmaster-General seen the script of the "World in Action" film on the Olympic Games? If he has, will he let us know what he thinks about it; and why should not the House of Commons see it, too?

Mr. Bevins: The position is quite simple. The Television Act, 1954, included three particular requirements within the context of these Questions. The first was impartiality in programmes of political controversy or which related to current public policy. The second was that the Authority should ensure that there were balanced programmes. The third was that editorial opinion should be excluded. When the Television Bill of 1963 was debated, the requirement about impartiality was relaxed so that a series of programmes could be treated as one. I think that that was generally acceptable to the House. I am bound to add that during all our debates on this Bill no hon. Member on either side of the House suggested that these provisions were objectionable. All that the Chairman of the I.T.A. has been doing has been discharging his responsibility to see that the law is not infringed.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only did the I.T.A. refuse to make available the text of this

broadcast "World in Action" but also forbade it to Granada Television as well? Although he will not introduce legislation along the lines suggested in this Question, will he confirm that there is nothing to prevent the I.T.A. from placing copies of the text in the Library of the House, which would be for the general convenience of hon. Members?

Mr. Bevins: My position is quite clear. I have no power whatever under any legislation to call for programmes of this type or any other. The Government do not propose to seek that power. If I were to call for that particular programme, or indeed for any other programme, for the purpose referred to by the hon. Gentleman, it would certainly constitute an implicit criticism of the behaviour of the Authority, and I do not think that that would be right.

Mr. Pavitt: Even though the Chairman of the Authority may be exercising control with justice, it is difficult to see him doing so when be was previously one of the top ten of the Government party. Would it not be more fair to him if the suggestion in Question No. 41 were followed and the right hon. Gentleman were consulted whenever a programme criticising the Government was withdrawn, so that the responsibility could be seen clearly to rest upon the Government for its withdrawal?

Mr. Bevins: No, certainly not. It was never the intention of Parliament that the House of Commons or Parliament as a whole should enjoy such power. That is the responsibility of the Authority. As regards the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman in his opening gambit, I think that was a most unworthy suggestion. The Chairman of the Independent Authority, in which the Government and, I believe, the country have full confidence, has abandoned all interest in active politics.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in democracy it is very important that political impartiality should be observed both by the I.T.A. and the B.B.C.? Is he further aware that some of us have had rather grave doubts on this subject in recent years, particularly where Granada Television is concerned?

Mr. Bevins: I think that there is something in what my hon. Friend says—[HON.


MEMBERS: ''Oh.''] If it is the wish of the House of Commons that in the case of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. their impartiality should go by the board and that those organisations should be free to express their editorial opinions, then Parliament ought to say so, but so far Parliament has not said so.

Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why an opportunity for hon. Members to view this in the cinema in Westminster Hall would be considered a reflection or criticism on anybody, and, if not, why should we not sec it?

Mr. Bevins: I have already explained to the House that I have no power in the first place to call for this or any other programme—

Mr. Paget: It could be asked for.

Mr. Bevins: —and if, despite the absence of that power, I were to ask for the programme to be shown here I think that that would be an implicit criticism of the Authority.

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that I have been accused by the Minister of making an unworthy comment, after specifically having gone out of my way not to question the impartiality of the Chairman, have I any protection from the Chair against that accusation?

Mr. Speaker: I think that what the hon. Gentleman said was—and my attention sometimes flags at Question Time—that it would be desirable for the protection of a particular individual that it should be made clear that he was not involved in some nefarious way. I hope that my recollection will be confirmed by HANSARD, and that ought to be enough to clear the hon. Gentleman from any misfortune resulting from the exchange.

Programmes (Viewers' Committee)

Mr. Dance: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to establish a Viewers' Committee representative of all opinions to advise the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority on the standards, timing and moral tone to be adopted by them in programme content.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. Charter and the Television Act already impose obligations on the B.B.C. and I.T.A. respectively to ascertain public opinion on their programmes and to consider criticisms and suggestions. Both organisations have General Advisory Councils, regional advisory committees and specialist advisory committees. Both are obliged to have regard to good taste and decency. I feel that these arrangements encompass what my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Dance: Surely these odd committees to which my right hon. Friend has referred are highly ineffective, and there is at the moment great feeling in the country about certain programmes. Surely the suggestion of mine ties up very much with the words of Lord Hill of Luton, who said:
In our work it is really helpful to have comments from people outside the television world both on general trends and individual programmes.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Glasgow Mr. Kenneth Adam, who is the Director of B.B.C. Television, stated—here in this paper "Television To-Day" are the headlines—
Sex and violence. B.B.C. say it will go on. No apologies for recent themes.

Mr. Speaker: Verbatim quotation even from a headline is out of order in a Question.

Mr. Dance: In view of this arrogant, dictatorial attitude, does not my right hon. Friend feel that the time has come when the viewers should be protected? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper in the names of many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House on this same theme?

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that I have read the comments to which my hon. Friend refers, but it is fair to say that since the passing of the Television Bill and the exchanges which the Government had with both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. there has been some improvement on both channels in the matter of violence. For the rest, I am quite sure that the broadcasting authorities will take note of what has been said by my hon. Friend. They are both very sensitive to all expressions of opinion in this House.

Local Broadcasting Stations, Scotland

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Postmaster-General if he will authorise the British Broadcasting Corporation to initiate local broadcasting stations in Scotland.

Mr. Bevins: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 2nd June.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are very laggard in encouraging and allowing the B.B.C. to pioneer this kind of activity? Does not the Minister agree that if the B.B.C. were allowed to do this kind of pioneering work, particularly in Scotland, it might do a considerable amount to help the economic development of the area, which everybody in the House so much desires?

Mr. Bevins: I do not quarrel with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member, but I have made it clear that the Government intend to carry out a review of local sound broadcasting in all its aspects when we have won the next General Election. That review will include Scotland.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the House to understand from my right hon. Friend that favourable consideration will be given to commercial local sound broadcasting?

Mr. Bevins: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the carefully worded statement which I made in the House a week or two ago.

Mr. Ross: Is this another part of the Government's policy which will be unveiled after the election? Would not there be merit in going ahead with this proposal now, particularly in those parts of Scotland which cannot receive even one television channel? Would it not be worth while giving them the opportunity of initiating local broadcasting services?

Mr. Bevins: As the hon. Member will appreciate, there is not a great deal of time before the end of the month and there are many considerations which must be fully thrashed out before decisions are taken.

Television Reception, North-East Area

Mr. Ainsley: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to improve television reception in the whole north-east area.

Mr. Bevins: Television stations are being built by the B.B.C. and by the I.T.A. at Belmont to serve the whole of Lincolnshire and part of the East Riding; at Scarborough to serve the Scarborough-Filey area; and by the B.B.C. in Weardale. A new 1,250 ft. mast at Emley Moor will be shared by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. and will be used to transmit B.B.C. 2 to south Yorkshire and will improve reception of independent television over much of the North-East.
I am also studying B.B.C. proposals for additional satellite stations.

Mr. Ainsley: In view of that long statement from the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is aware that one can liken it to old-fashioned railway coaches—first, second and third-class passengers? Is he aware that in the North-East we are now suffering increasingly from the fact that there comes on television the notice "Do not adjust your set. It is international interference over which we have no control." This is B.B.C. 1. People in the North-East have no idea of B.B.C. 2. Why is the right hon. Gentleman restricting people in the North-East to B.B.C. 1? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that one-third of my constituents have B.B.C. none? When will the right hon. Gentleman give some semblance of justice to the people in the North-East?

Mr. Bevins: I indicated in my reply that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. between them are doing a great deal to improve reception in the North-East. I am not clear from what the hon. Gentleman said whether he wants B.B.C. 2 as well as B.B.C. 1 or not.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people in the North-East are extremely grateful for the advance he is making in putting a relay station in Weardale, and would like to express their appreciation to him for this? Also, would he in future when answering Questions about the North-East not include Lincolnshire?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir, indeed, but there have been so many Questions on this subject that it was difficult to avoid that.

Mr. Slater: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) has little knowledge of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, Northwest (Mr. Ainsley)? Also, can he tell the House what is being done to obviate the disturbance that we are suffering from as a result of foreign interference?

Mr. Bevins: I have already answered several questions on the second point mentioned by the hon. Member. As to the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), I seem to recall the by-election result at Sunderland some years ago which was not too bad at all.

HONOURS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister (1) the function of the Honours Scrutiny Committee; whether they have the power to reject honours recommended by a Government; and how many were rejected by that Committee in the past five years;

(2) to what extent the terms of reference of the Honours Scrutiny Committee define honours which are awarded for political services to a political party.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I am sending the right hon. Member a copy of the relevant Order of the Privy Council setting out the terms of reference of the Committee. It cannot reject names.

Mr. Shinwell: Now, will the Prime Minister answer my first Question: what is the function of the Honours Scrutiny Committee and how many recommendations has it accepted or rejected?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will find the function of the Committee in the terms of reference. They are to review names, if necessary, and to report upon them to the Prime Minister.

Dame Irene Ward: Is there a woman on this distinguished Committee?

The Prime Minister: Not yet.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of his reply, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not the case that in the last five years the Honours Scrutiny Committee has not rejected a single recommendation made by successive Governments and that it has neither the staff nor the power to reject any recommendation? If I am correct in the assumption that this Committee has not rejected a single recommendation in the past five years, what is the purpose of continuing this farce? Ought not the Honours Scrutiny Committee to be abandoned?

The Prime Minister: I said in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee could not reject but that it can make recommendations to the Prime Minister. It has done so on a number of occasions in recent years.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Will my right hon. Friend consider altering the rules so that an honour might be awarded to the public relations expert who managed all the commercials this morning about the allegedly beneficent intervention by the Leader of the Opposition in the Independent Television strike which was certainly the pseudo event of the year and which seems to have left the wretched union in a rather worse position than it was before the strike began?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot think that that arises out of this Question or any answer to it.

Mr. W. Hamilton: If the Committee cannot delete names, has it the power to suggest names? Is the Prime Minister aware that there are at least two Scottish Tory Members of Parliament who are not yet knights?

The Prime Minister: If I may reply to one of them, the answer is "No, Sir.

RACIAL RELATIONSHIPS

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the world's great danger is racial conflict; and what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to improve world racial relationships.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to my speech in the foreign affairs debate on 17th June.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that since then there was an excellent programme on "Panorama" on 30th June in which the star performer said that the world's greatest danger is racial conflict? As the Prime Minister said that on that programme, will he now help to do something positive to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) in getting his Bill through this House against the opposition of the back benches opposite?

The Prime Minister: It would be more polite to answer that supplementary question when the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) is present.

Mr. Lewis: But is the Prime Minister aware that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough is at this moment celebrating the independence of Nyasaland, which is now Malawi, and that that shows that he has done something positive? May we now ask the Prime Minister to do something positive about racial relationships?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asked me if I was aware of this racial problem. As I was one of the first to call attention to it, I think I am.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all very much welcomed his reference the other night to the fact that the Commonwealth is the greatest multiracial association in the world? Is he further aware that when Hugh Gaitskell said that in 1962, he was accused by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor of living in the past?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is always able to remember his own speeches to the date and the hour. Apparently he is now referring to a speech of which I should like notice before answering his question, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member from Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) has never denied—how could he?—that the Commonwealth is a multiracial association.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a contribution to the improvement of world racial relationships to continue to supply arms to South Africa in defiance of United Nations resolutions?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but it would be a contribution to the defence of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, the Aden Federation and Malaysia if we had the facilities of the Simonstown Agreement

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must get back to automatic telephone exchanges at Rutherglen. Question No. 34.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance on a matter which I believe to be of considerable importance to the House. It will not have escaped your attention that there are today only three Questions on the Order Paper which are addressed to the Prime Minister. This is not because hon. Members are not anxious to put questions to the right hon. Gentleman, but because of his increasing practice of transferring Questions to other Ministers and not accepting responsibility for them himself.
According to Erskine May, Chapter 17, page 356, Questions should be addressed to the Minister primarily responsible. As the Prime Minister is taking primary responsibility for many aspects of policy, should not he be prepared to answer Questions on these subjects?
I refer your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Question No. 85 on the Order Paper, which was accepted by the Table as addressed to the Prime Minister. It was subsequently transferred to the Secretary of State for Defence. As the Prime Minister is accepting responsibility for the supply of arms to Spain, and is making electioneering speeches in the country about it, should not he be prepared to answer Questions in the House on the subject?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) must know that I cannot and do not accept responsibility for transfer of Questions. The Chair could not do it for a variety of reasons, and does not.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While all of us recognise that Ministers do transfer Questions from one to another, and that you have no responsibility for it, could


you tell us, for our guidance, whether the Prime Minister, for example, on realising that there is a widespread desire that he should answer a Question, could at least ask your permission to answer it?
Since, on this subject, the Prime Minister has shown such bravery about the supply of arms to Spain at a private dinner in the St. Stephen's Club, could he not show similar bravery in the House?

Mr. Speaker: It is no good trying to involve the Chair in these interesting matters.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that the House is gratified that the Government are not attempting the "one man band" technique which seems to be very popular in other quarters? Surely the procedure of the House is best served by Ministers who are responsible departmentally for accepting Questions going to the Box and accepting responsibility for the Answers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's observations are interesting, but not even instrumentally can the Chair be involved in this matter.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a growing practice of the Prime Minister of the day to transfer Questions to other Ministers when he is responsible for general Government policy. Although, in the past, Prime Ministers, when Questions were addressed to them, frequently transferred Questions, the practice is now much harsher than ever before. Since you have said, quite rightly, that you have no responsibility for this, would you allow me now to move a Motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: No. Not now.

FEDERATION OF SOUTH ARABIA (NEW CONSTITUTION)

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement on the Federation of South Arabia.
At the conference which ended on 4th July, the representatives of the Federation of South Arabia decided radically to reshape the Federal Constitution on democratic lines. A White Paper, setting out the conclusions reached, is being printed and, I hope, will be available tomorrow.
The new Constitution will provide for a Legislature, consisting of a Council of State composed of one representative from each State, and a national Assembly whose members will be chosen wherever possible, by direct popular election. In those parts where tribal conditions make this impracticable, there will at first be indirect election through electoral colleges. An independent commission will advise where and when a system of direct election can be introduced.
There will be a constitutional President elected by the Legislature and the present rotating chairmen will be replaced by a Prime Minister who will be dependent upon the support of a parliamentary majority. Certain other changes were also agreed, the effect of which will be to give to the States a greater say in matters relating to internal security and in the control of the security forces.
The delegates unanimously requested that the Federation should have independence not later than 1968 and that Britain should continue thereafter to retain her military base in Aden for the defence of the Federation and the fulfilment of her worldwide responsibilities. On behalf of the British Government, I agreed to this request and I undertook that we would, at the appropriate time, convene a conference to fix a date for independence and to conclude the necessary defence agreement.
The British Government agreed that the constitutional status of Aden, which is at present a Crown Colony, should be raised to that of the other members of the Federation, which are protected States. Sovereignty in respect of Aden will be transferred in part to the Federation and in part to Aden, in accordance with the distribution of functions between the Federal and State authorities. As soon as practicable after the Aden elections this autumn, a meeting will be convened to agree upon the arrangements for


the transfer, and upon any further constitutional changes which may be necessary.
What was, in any case, bound to be a difficult negotiation was made more difficult by the activities of one of the delegates, the Sultan of Fadhli who, by the offer of bribes, tried to induce other delegates to break up the conference. When he saw that his efforts were unsuccessful, he flew to Cairo, where he made a number of completely false statements to which I feel obliged to refer.
The Sultan said that, at the conference, he had demanded that United Nations resolutions on Aden should be implemented: he never said a word about this. He said that he had called for the removal of the British base in Aden: on the contrary, he presented a paper to the conference proposinig the retention of the British base after independence. He said that he had asked for the granting of immediate independence: in fact, he proposed that there should be independence not later than 1969, although he subsequently accepted the earlier date of 1968. He accused my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of having deceived Parliament about the supply of arms to the Yemeni Royalists. That is, of course, totally untrue.
I hope that the House will forgive me for having dealt in such detail with these allegations, but, in view of the world-wide publicity they have received, I thought it necessary to refute them unequivocally.
During the course of the conference, three more States in South Arabia applied to join the Federation and were admitted to membership. As I have already explained to the House, we recognise the importance of economic as well as political advance and therefore, at the end of the conference, I invited the Federal Minister of Finance and one or two other members of the Federal Government to remain in London to discuss with us proposals for increased aid.
The constitutional changes which were agreed at the conference represent a decisive step in the political evolution of the Federation and will undoubtedly make a significant contribution to the unity and progress of the inhabitants of South Arabia.

Mr. Healey: I welcome the fact that agreement has been reached in principle on independence for South Arabia in 1968. Can I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the relationship between Aden and the mainland States remains to be negotiated after elections in Aden? Can he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not renounce its sovereign responsibilities in Aden to the Federation until agreement has been reached on a status for Aden inside the Federation which is acceptable to a representative Aden Government?
Has the right hon. Gentleman any information so far about the reactions of the inhabitants of the State of Fadhli to the action of the Sultan of Fadhli? Is it the case that if his action is supported by the inhabitants, he is constitutionally free to apply to secede? I think that many of us are somewhat in the dark about the constitutional position.
Finally, there is one statement which was made by the Sultan and to which the right hon. Gentleman did not reply. I wonder whether he could do so now. The Sultan of Fadhli said that he and four other sheikhs had approached the Federal Government of protest against the transit of arms to Yemeni Royalists through their territory. The right hon. Gentleman did not rebut this in terms. I wonder whether he would be kind enough to say whether, in fact, such a protest was made by the sheikhs, as there is a good deal of concern in the country about this matter, particularly in view of the article in the Sunday Times last Sunday.

Mr. Sandys: I have made inquiries about the hon. Gentleman's last question, but I have not yet had the information whether there has been any protest about anything. However, I have already stated the position about any British Government action. Of course, arms are moving about all over the place in this part of the world. They are almost currency, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
On the other issues he has raised, I can give him the assurance, as will be seen from the report of the conference, when it is published, that it is quite clear that the meeting to discuss the transfer of sovereignty in respect of Aden is a


meeting to secure agreement by all concerned. The people mainly concerned are, of course, the people of Aden themselves, but the Federal Government and the British Government will also have to reach agreement on the arrangements for the transfer of sovereignty both to Aden and the Federation, in accordance with the distribution of powers under the Constitution.
The reaction of the inhabitants of Fadhli is still rather obscure and I do not think that it would be wise for me to try to make any statement about it. The constitutional position is that the Constitution of the Federation, like the constitutions of most federations, does not provide for secession.

Mr. Wall: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an exceptionally good conclusion to what must have been a very long and difficult conference? Will there be any immediate change in the High Commissioner's powers with respect to the State of Aden before the general election? How many States which are British-protected States in Southern Arabia are not yet members of the Federation? Is there any machinery for their later accession to the Federation?

Mr. Sandys: There are no immediate changes in the position in Aden. The transfer of sovereignty has been agreed in principle, but nothing can take place until the meeting which I have mentioned and which is to be held after the elections in Aden, when the arrangements for the transfer and the consequential changes will have to be agreed. I think that I am right in saying—but I am open to correction—that there are three other States in the Aden Protectorate which are still not members of the Federation.

Mr. Wade: May I ask for a little further clarification about the transfer of the sovereignty of Aden in part to the Federation? Will this be subject to confirmation at elections to be held in Aden? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the electorate is sufficiently wide and representative to ensure that the wishes of the people of Aden are clearly known?

Mr. Sandys: The franchise is a matter for the Legislature of Aden itself. It decides its own franchise and has recently revised it. The meeting to which

I have referred will be held after the elections in Aden. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his efforts in bringing this conference to a successful conclusion in spite of the difficulties created by the Sultan of Fadhli will afford great satisfaction in this country as well as in the Federation? Can he tell the House whether he is in a position to know how the Sultan of Fadhli was getting funds for bribing the other members of the conference and what was the source of those funds?

Mr. Sandys: It is quite easy to receive money if someone wants to give it to one. I leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend, with his own vivid imagination, to guess where this money came from.

Mr. Healey: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on one question? When he says in his statement that sovereignty will be transferred in accordance with the distribution of functions between the Federal and State authorities, does that imply the existing distribution of functions, or is it still open for the negotiations which will be held after the Aden elections to revise the Constitution in this respect?

Mr. Sandys: It is open to the representatives of Aden and the States, who will be meeting after the Aden elections, to decide the arrangements for the transfer of sovereignty and to make any further changes which they think necessary in the Constitution. The Constitution also includes the question of the distribution of powers as between State and Federal authorities.

Mr. W. Yates: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting, or confirming, to the House and the country that the money which is supposed to have been sent to the sheikhs came from the U.A.R. Embassy? This is a very important matter. It is all very well to make sly remarks at the Box without following them up, but is he aware that the Foreign Secretary is doing his best to improve our relations with the U.A.R., as is the Prime Minister, and that remarks like that can do nothing but damage all the work which they have been able to do?


Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that what he has proposed has been to support the United Nations and to implement the resolutions, but is he also aware that the relations of Aden and the Federation will be extremely difficult? Will he bear in mind that if he has selected Mohammed Farid to run the South-West Federation he may have made a grave miscalculation which may have been the result of the present local difficulties?

Mr. Sandys: I do not feel that my hon. Friend's question was intended to be helpful.

Mr. W. Yates: That is absolutely cheap.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whereas it is good that there has been an agreement about independence, the essential question—the relationship between Aden and the rest of the Federation—has not been solved, but has been postponed, and that the really central problem therefore still remains to be solved by some Government or other in the future?

Mr. Sandys: I do not claim that it has been solved, but a lot of progress has been made. One of the outstanding features of this conference was the sense of South Arabian unity. Throughout the conference nobody at any moment suggested that Aden should be withdrawn from the Federation. Everyone recognised that they belonged together and must work out their future together.
Similarly, since certain things have been said, I want to make it clear that nobody at any stage in the conference suggested that he wanted to see the British base in Aden removed, either before or after independence. There was a general desire to see us remain there for the defence and protection of the Federation and also so that we might continue to discharge our worldwide responsibilities, in respect of which Aden is so important.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this now.

Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order. Is it in order for a Minister to refuse to answer a question from his own side of the House because he considers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Later—

Mr. W. Yates: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House are very strict in respect of references made to other countries or to heads of States of other countries or their ambassadors or embassies in this country. It must have come to your knowledge, Mr. Speaker, as well as to that of many Members, that there appeared in the newspapers on Sunday a suggestion that the disappearance of one of the leading members of this conference occurred through a bribe—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I assume that the hon. Member is addressing me on a point of order. If not, he has no right to address me. Will he indicate what his point of order is?

Mr. Yates: My point of order is very clear, Mr. Speaker. Where a Minister, at the Dispatch Box, by innuendo invites hon. Members to believe that an ambassador or embassy staff—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did not."] Yes he did, by implication. I suggest that by the rules of order he is precluded from making these statements unless he can substantiate them at the Dispatch Box. Is not that the rule of the House?

Mr. Speaker: There was nothing at all out of order in that context.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS (NOTICE)

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House.
The hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) lately put to me the suggestion that some warning should be given of Ministerial statements.
I am anxious to help the House as far as I can, and propose to arrange—if that be the wish of the House—that a notice shall be placed in the Members' Lobby when I have received, privately, notice that a Ministerial statement is to be made. It will, however, be impracticable for that to be done if the necessary notice does not reach me until after about 2 p.m. on the day in question.
I have consulted the Leader of the House, who has assured me that the


Government would be glad to see effect given to this proposal if the House wishes, so long as it is clearly understood that, for one reason or another, there may be occasions when arrangements for Ministers to make statements are changed at the last moment. In particular, one can imagine that in exceptional circumstances a Minister might wish to give some information to the House at shorter notice.
What is posted up in the Members' Lobby can, therefore, be regarded as informal guidance for the assistance of hon. Members and not as an intimation of "notice" in any formal sense. With this warning I should like to commend the proposal to the House and if it meets with the House's approval I will introduce it forthwith.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. G. Brown: My hon. Friends and I are very grateful for your efforts in this matter, Mr. Speaker, and for the response that the Government have made. I am sure that it will be for the benefit of the whole House. May I ask you one question? There are occasions when Ministers decide to answer Oral Questions out of order. In effect, this is the same as making a statement. Could that also be subject to the same procedure? Could we be told that a Minister will answer, say, Questions Nos. 99, 100 and 101 at the end of Question Time, if they are not reached? That would also help us.

Mr. Speaker: It is my statement, and I suppose that I should answer. I will give consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but the House will appreciate the essential distinction between that which was raised before and this point. If an hon. Member who is interested in the answer to a Question does not take the trouble to turn up—in the expectation that it will not be reached—that is his affair. He has had warning from the Order Paper. On the other hand, he may have no warning about a Ministerial statement. It is a different matter. He merely has to rely on what the Order Paper says.

Sir J. Maitland: I thank you for the consideration that you have given this matter, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make one comment. My great-great-grandfather came to the House at the

end of the eighteenth century, and was here for seventeen years. All the researches that I have been able to make have not revealed that he ever said or did anything in this House. I sometimes think that he must have been rather wise. The point is that when my great-great-grandson comes into the House, and he makes researches to see what his great-great-grandfather has done, he will discover that I was responsible for this stupendous innovation, and for that I thank you.

Mr. Bellenger: It used to be the custom for hon. Members who wished to put a Private Notice Question to a Minister to do so by 12 noon. The Commonwealth Secretary is often in the habit of making statements to the House, some of which could reasonably be deferred to a Question from a back bencher or even a Front bencher on either side of the House. Therefore, if you leave it until two o'clock in the afternoon before the Minister informs you that he wants to make a statement it does not give much time for hon. Members to be informed and, if they have an interest, to be in the House when the statement is made.

Mr. Speaker: Everything that the right hon. Gentleman says is quite true, but I am doing as best I can.

Mr. P. Williams: I welcome the announcement you have made, Mr. Speaker, and would like to add one plea. I hope that your statement and this development will not lead to a multiplicity of Private Notice Questions, thereby transgressing on the normal time of the House.

Mr. Speaker: This arrangement has no effect upon Private Notice Questions, one way or the other.

Mr. G. Brown: I am not sure whether I made myself absolutely clear, Mr. Speaker. The transferring of an Answer to the end of Question Time can occur whether or not the hon. Member who has put down the Question is present. A Minister may decide that he wants to make a rather fuller Answer, which then becomes of rather wider interest to the House than the Answer that hon. Members thought he might make to the Question. The Minister will then say, "With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer this Question at the end of Questions", whereupon that Question takes


on the character of a Ministerial statement. When a Minister desires to do that, will you consider the possibility that that could also be subject to the new procedure that you have suggested?

Mr. Speaker: I have said that I will consider it. I do not know whether I made the distinction plain. Once a Question is on the Order Paper, whether it is answered in its normal position or at the end of Question Time the hon. Member who has put down the Question has a warning of its existence. I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but that is the distinction between the two matters.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

3.59 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate voting by candidates in elections for local office.
I seek leave to introduce a short and simple Bill which is designed to correct a cause of confusion and possible injustice when, for example, a newly-elected local authority meets for the first time to elect from among its members a chairman and vice-chairman.
The uncertainty which the Bill is designed to eliminate is the question of whether procedure should be followed by a councillor who is a candidate for, let us say, the office of chairman—whether to vote for himself, to abstain, or even, as was the tradition a few years ago, to vote for his opponent.
Generally, the manner in which a candidate for an office casts his own vote will have no effect upon the outcome, because the number of those voting for the successful councillor will be substantially greater than the number of those voting for his opponent. Occasionally, because of the evenly balanced views of members of the council, the manner in which the candidates for a local office vote is of critical importance. It is with those occasions that my Bill would be concerned.
My inquiries have shown that there is no uniform custom or tradition of behaviour throughout the country. The old tradition, to which I have just referred, of voting for one's opponent, still lingers on, though mainly as a memory of olden and perhaps more courteous days. Many candidates for such an office show a natural diffidence about voting for themselves—which, to my mind, does them considerable credit—and they abstain from voting. Others, perhaps this time in the majority, have no compunction whatsoever about registering a vote in their own favour.
I think it desirable that a uniform procedure should be adopted so that all candidates for a local office are placed on an equal footing, with the course which they are to adopt clearly laid down, so that a councillor who is, perhaps, still in possession of a certain amount of natural


diffidence is not placed at a disadvantage thereby with his fellows.
I will not weary the House with many examples of what I have in mind, but I feel that I ought to give one or two examples of the instances which I have come across in past years and even only recently. The first concerns an election in Northumberland which took place in 1962, and describes the election of a chairman and a vice-chairman. A letter from one of those concerned in this election describes the election of the chairman as follows:
The retiring chairman candidate, having been proposed and seconded, had nine votes, but did not vote for himself. If he had he would have had 10 votes. The opposition chairman candidate, having been proposed and seconded, also had nine votes. He voted for himself, making 10 votes. The opposition chairman was duly elected by 10 votes to nine.
The second example of the kind of anomaly which my Bill would seek to remedy concerns a rural district in the north-west of England. I have a letter from the clerk of the council, who states:
What happened was that at the election of chairman of the council, the retiring chairman, who was, of course, in the chair at the time, was nominated and proceeded to conduct the election. There was one other nomination and upon the matter being put to the council there was equality of votes—11 each. After this lapse of time—
perhaps I ought here to explain that this letter describes something which took place several years ago—
I do not remember whether there were 22 present with the chairman voting for himself the first time, or whether there were 23 present with the chairman refraining from voting, but on the equality being shown he promptly gave a casting vote in his own favour and thereby elected himself for a further term of office, with, of course, half the council against him.
The third example which prompted me to bring this matter before the House concerns a case which occurred in my own constituency as recently as the end of May of this year, after the local government elections had taken place in the urban district of Wigston. Perhaps I may best describe what happened by reading a short extract from a cutting from the local paper. It is from the

Oadby & Wigston Advertiser of Friday, 29th May, 1964, and it is headed, "Storm in choosing Vice-Chairman".
The relevant few lines are:
When Conservative councillor Mobbs was nominated for the office of vice-chairman. Liberal councillor Allsopp was nominated as his rival. Nine votes were cast for Mr. Mobbs (the Labour members voting solidly with the Conservatives), while eight votes were registered by the Liberal members for Mr. Allsopp.
It goes on—this is what the Bill would seek to correct—
The Chairman voted for Mr. Allsopp and Mr. Allsopp voted for himself. Mr. Mobbs refrained from voting.
The Bill would suggest that all candidates in an election for a local office should be required to withdraw from the council chamber and abstain from voting.
I can say that practically all the rural and urban district council members with whom I have been in touch in the past few weeks favour this course. The members of larger city and county authorities are more non-committal. As many pointed out to me, matters of this sort tend to be settled by arrangement outside the council chamber before the meeting and presented to the council as a fait accompli.
The criticism has been levelled that the Bill would be effective only in respect of those bodies where opinion is nicely balanced, and hence would be of limited value. The same could be said of most of our criminal statutes which we still regard as necessary. I believe that a Measure of this nature would be of value to local and statutory authorities. For this and for other reasons I ask leave to bring in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Farr, Mr. Bingham, Captain Walter Elliot, Mr. John Hollingworth, Mr. Ian Percival, and Mr. Colin Turner.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Bill to regulate voting by candidates in elections for local office, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time ---tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

ZAMBIA INDEPENDENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

4.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. John Tilney): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have liked to have spoken, but the House will understand how heavy his engagements are on the eve of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby), who was in the chair for most of the meetings of the Independence Conference last May, rightly, was much praised for his work at it. He is now celebrating in Malawi her independence. Otherwise, he would have been moving this Second Reading. My own regret is that I have never visited Northern Rhodesia, though I have long wished to do so.
The Bill provides for the ending of Her Majesty's jurisdiction in Northern Rhodesia on the 24th October of this year. Northern Rhodesia will that day become the independent Republic of Zambia. It is surprising to many how short the connection between our two countries has been. Less than 75 years ago, in 1890, the High Commissioner in Cape Town received a letter from Lewanika, the Paramount Chief of Barotseland. It came by the hand of M. Francois Coillard, that great missionary priest. It asked for British protection. The High Commissioner acceded to the request.
From that time for many years the country was administered by the British South Africa Company. It was not an easy or lucrative task. For 50 years or more the Zambia-to-be had suffered from invasions. Zulus from the south, Arabs from the north, even the Kalolo from far off Basutoland, though

the Lozi had been able to revolt successfully and under the Lewanika rule once more in Barotseland. But slavery was rampant. Only in 1898 was the last Arab caravan intercepted and the slaves freed. The Bemba have a saying:
If you are killing a snake, destroy its mouth, also
I believe that history will say that the snake of slavery was not just scotched, but the job was well done and so the company's administration went on till 1924. Only then was it assumed by the Crown.
Soon after, the economic development of the territory quickened due to the growth of the copper mines. The economic improvement in the country has gone on since. The House knows well the hopes and frustrations of the Federal decade, and all the background to the decision by Her Majesty's Government in March last year that no territory would be kept in the Federation against its will. I do not think that the House would wish me to thumb through the diaries of the past, though later I want to say something about some of those who wrote them.
It is to the future of Northern Rhodesia, internally self-governing since January, in October to become Zambia, that we should look. At the end of the Independence Conference of last May, the Report of which, Cmnd. 2365, will probably be referred to many times today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said how much we welcomed the decision of that conference that Zambia should seek to become a member of the Commonwealth. It is fitting that this Second Reading debate should take place on the eve of a Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference where so much could happen for the benefit of man if only the right decisions are taken.
But it was not only my right hon. Friend who spoke at the end of the Independence Conference. Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, that remarkable leader of the Zambian peoples, modest, yet visionary, of great moral fibre—a captain of minds as well as of sport; I fear that I would never qualify for his ministerial football team—the controller of an able hardworking and responsible Ministry, said this of Britain:
I must thank you and the British Government, and, indeed, the British people as a


whole for creating history in this way. This is the first time that Her Majesty's Government has taken a decision of this nature. Before this colonial history has ended by you, Sir, and your colleagues declaring independence only, but here and now you have declared it is going to be an independent Republic of Zambia. I am sure that this is a beginning of a new chapter that is going to be written for a long time to come. The association between Britain and the Republic of Zambia when the present Northern Rhodesia so becomes, I have no doubt has begun well".
Dr. Kaunda went on to pay a fitting tribute to the
wonderful faithful and very sincere services
of the Governor, Sir Evelyn Home. But, later, he felt constrained to say that Northern Rhodesia would have to lean very heavily on Britain for technical and other forms of aid.
I believe that there is a proverb in Chinyanja that
Indian corn often comes in full measure to the toothless man".
It is up to us to help to supply the basic economic teeth that can put the potential bounty of nature in Central Africa to good effect. We have, indeed, already started to do so. We are giving Northern Rhodesia a total of £5¾ million in financial aid, composed of a £2¾ million grant in respect of the ex-Federal short-term debt and a £3 million loan towards the cost of compensation to members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.
We have also said that in the autumn we will be ready to discuss further with the Northern Rhodesia Government the question of what aid might be provided for development and other purposes. Zambia, so dependent on that most beautiful of metals, copper, will probably wish to try to diversify her products, especially her agricultural ones. But all this needs not only intelligence, but knowledge. The first may be given by God, but the second costs a lot of money to acquire.
The current five-year development plan which ends next year envisages the expenditure of £5m. on capital projects connected with African education and staff training. It also provides for the expansion of 21 existing secondary schools and the building of 23 new ones. A new university is to be built soon.
But minds burgeon only in the right atmosphere. The new Northern Rhode-

sian Constitution, drafted on the basis of Cmnd. 2365, is part Westminster part Washington. It is none the worse for that. I have often thought—with respect, Mr. Speaker—that our particular model of democracy does not travel all that well along the roads of Asia or of Africa. Zambia will be the first of our dependencies to negotiate with us a Republican status for independence.
There are, indeed, solid advantages to be gained by going straight to a republic rather than retaining the monarchical form for a short time. But it has been done with propriety and courtesy to Her Majesty, and above all, with the desire for continuing links with Great Britain and the Commonwealth. I believe that everyone in this country and in Northern Rhodesia will be glad to know that Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal will be representing Her Majesty at the October celebrations in Zambia.
Zambia wishes to have an executive President with wide powers, giving firm and effective leadership. But that does not mean dictatorship. There are many checks and balances. Though the present Constitutional Council will disappear, its functions will be carried on by a judicial tribunal. The existing Bill of Rights is carried forward and entrenched with special arrangements for its enforcement. The judiciary will be independent. Public prosecutions should be effectively separated from politics. There will be a Public Service Commission for the Civil Service.
My right hon. Friend, at the close of the Independence Conference, said:
The constitution upon which you have decided combines important features of the British and of the American systems of government. It provides for a President with strong executive powers; at the same time, the Ministers in the new Government will be Members of Parliament. Thus, the Government, in practice, will be responsible to Parliament in much the same way as here in Britain. Moreover, the Constitution provides that if the President, because he has perhaps lost his majority in Parliament, decides to dissolve it he also dissolves himself and is obliged to seek re-election".
Some countries may wish that they also had such a Constitution.
I would like to pay tribute to those overseas and other civil servants who, in past years, have made this transfer of power possible. As I know there has been anxiety in certain quarters both


here and overseas I would like to turn now to the question of the terminal benefits available to expatriate members of the Northern Rhodesian Civil Service, a matter which was discussed last month in another place.
I think that it is generally agreed that adequate provision has been made for the 1,200 officers of H.M. Overseas Civil Service. They benefit under a scheme which allows them to retire with earned pension, and also qualify for a lumpsum compensation of which we pay half for loss of career prospects. There is a ceiling of £12,000 on the lump sum. The anxiety which has been expressed both in this House and in another place has related to two other categories of officers. First, the so-called "non-designated" officers, of whom about 400 are pensionable. Secondly, the European ex-Federal officers, of whom about 2,000 are now serving in Northern Rhodesia.
The Northern Rhodesia Government showed that they were aware of the difficulties of the non-designated officers by introducing last January a scheme under which such officers, who formerly would have forfeited all pension rights by premature retirement, could retire at six months' notice with earned pension. If such officers continued to serve for two years after the achievement of self-government, that is, until January, 1966, they were entitled to retire under abolition of office terms, which gives them a pension enhanced by up to one-third. Finally, the arrangements for commutation of pensions were improved.
As the House well knows, the representatives of the non-designated officers did not accept that this was a fully satisfactory solution of their difficulties. The Northern Rhodesia Government have re-considered the question, and I am very glad to be able to inform the House that they have now agreed that if any of these officers are either superseded for promotion or required to retire because of Africanisation they are now eligible for lump-sum compensation, at half the level paid to H.M.O.C.S. officers, in addition to earned pension. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing satisfaction at this very generous gesture by the Northern Rhodesia Government.
I am glad, too, to inform the House that the Northern Rhodesia Government

have also improved the position of the former Federal officers who accepted transfer to the Northern Rhodesia service. These officers have now the following alternatives. They may retire with earned pension to date plus the Federal abolition pension of one-third and then re-engage on contract terms. They may, alternatively, opt to convert to the same conditions of service as the non-designated officers, and thus become eligible for the new concession of half the Overseas Service Aid Scheme lumpsum compensation, if superseded for promotion or retired to facilitate Africanisation. Thirdly, they may opt to continue to serve on local conditions. I am sure that the House will agree this is a considerably more favourable settlement for these officers than they expected hitherto.
I must apologise for speaking at length, but I know that the House will wish me to comment briefly on some of the Clauses of the Bill, though, following the suggestion made during the Second Reading of the Malawi Independence Bill, the House will note that for the first time in a Bill of this kind there is an Explanatory Memorandum. Some Clauses, such as the first and second, therefore need no further explanation from me.

Clauses 3 and 4 deal with nationality matters consequent on the attaining of independence by Zambia, and make provision following the usual pattern when a British protectorate becomes an independent country in the Commonwealth. The arrangements for citizenship are generally in standard form, as in other independence constitutions. The National Progress Party, on behalf of the Europeans, was anxious that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies should be able to become Zambia citizens and continue to retain concurrent United Kingdom citizenship. The Northern Rhodesia Government, for understandable reasons, were unable to agree.

I very much hope that the Europeans will be reassured by the provision in the British Nationality Act, 1964, under which those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have a specified connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining Colony, who are required to give up this citizenship


to obtain another Commonwealth citizenship, may at any time reassume their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by a very simple procedure which can be gone through at the British High Commission without any need to return to Britain for the purpose.

Clause 3(1) adds Zambia to the Commonwealth countries listed in Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act, 1948; in consequence, Zambia citizens will be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens in United Kingdom law. Under this Clause, also, Northern Rhodesia will cease to be a protectorate for the purposes of the British Nationality Acts.

The effect of Clause 3(2) is that persons who are British-protected persons because of a connection with Northern Rhodesia will not lose that status until they acquire citizenship of Zambia.

Clause 3(3) withdraws citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from persons who acquire Zambia citizenship on 24th October, 1964, but this is subject to the exceptions contained in Clause 4.

Clause 4 preserves the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies of persons who become citizens of Zambia on independence, but who have a substantial connection with the United Kingdom.

Clause 5 enables Her Majesty in Council to provide for the jurisdiction, powers and procedure of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in respect of appeals from the courts of Zambia. Under this Clause, provision may be made, both in the law of the United Kingdom and in the law of Zambia, to give effect to the arrangements agreed at the Independence Conference by which the Judicial Committee can be used as an appeal court for Zambia. This depends on the initiative being taken by the local government to put the judicial machinery in motion.

Clause 6 deals with appeals to the Queen in Council from the Court of Appeal for Northern Rhodesia which are pending immediately before independence. Under this Clause, if arrangements are made between the Government of the territory and the British Government for continuing and disposing of

these pending appeals an Order in Council may be made by Her Majesty for giving effect to these arrangements.

The Memorandum explains Clause 7.

Clause 8 terminates the rights and obligations of the Crown and of the Northern Rhodesia Government arising under all existing agreements, undertakings or understandings with the Litunga of Barotseland. The Clause does not affect the Barotseland Agreement, 1964, which was an Agreement entered into between the Northern Rhodesia Government and the Litunga at the time of the Independence Conference regarding the position of Barotseland within independent Zambia; nor does it affect the rights and obligations between the Litunga and other parties under the agreements to which it refers.

The British Government have been conscious throughout the approach to independence of their special relationship with the Litunga, who visited London in 1963, for discussions with the then First Secretary. As a result of these talks, he agreed to open discussions with the Northern Rhodesia Government about the future relationship between Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia. After a long process of negotiations, Dr. Kaunda and the Litunga, in the presence of the Secretary of State, signed a new agreement on 18th May which defines the position of Barotseland, which is to become an integral part of independent Zambia.

This Agreement has been published—Cmnd. 2366. I pay tribute to the statesmanship of the Litunga and Dr. Kaunda in reaching agreement, which enables Barotseland to go forward with the rest of Northern Rhodesia as a unity, and has enabled Her Majesty's Government honourably to discharge the obligations arising from our mutual links that have lasted so long.

Clauses 9, 10 and 11 contain supplementary provisions.

I believe that all hon. Members will rejoice with the people of Zambia that this ancient House this day has set in motion a parliamentary and legal process that will bring not only independence to old friends, but will prepare the way for the entry of the newest member of our great Commonwealth of Nations. To the people of Zambia, called after the great river, we send our greetings and good


wishes for their future happiness in the decades to come, and as 24th October is United Nations day, our hope, too, that all, whatever their race or creed or particular affinity, will build up Zambia to lasting success and prosperity.

4.30 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I should make it clear that in the normal way the Member speaking from this Dispatch Box would be my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) or my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), but that at the moment both are in Malawi attending the independence celebrations there. Therefore, I have been asked, on behalf of the Opposition, to extend our very warm welcome to the Bill and our felicitations to the people of Northern Rhodesia, so soon to become Zambia.
It is most auspicious that this debate should be taking place today on the eve of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, when all the Commonwealth leaders are gathering here in London. It is also auspicious, as the Under-Secretary said, that the formal assumption of independence by Zambia is to take place on 24th October. Some of us have been trying to use this as a possible pointer to the date of the General Election here—it happens to be a Thursday. However, we are aware that this date was chosen for other reasons. It is United Nations Day, and the new State of Zambia wished at the earliest possible moment to indicate that it hoped to take its place on the world scene as well as remain in membership of the British Commonwealth.
All of us in the House who have followed the affairs of Northern Rhodesia feel great sympathy with her over the difficult time she has had in the years of federation. I have had the good fortune to visit Northern Rhodesia. I have seen the magnificence of the Victoria Falls; I have been down one of the copper mines, and I have visited the administrative capital of Lusaka. This was a long time ago. I was there in 1954, when the Federation was just starting on its stormy course. I am afraid that even then it was quite clear that it was not made to last.
We are sorry that in some ways Northern Rhodesia has had, because of

the difficulties over federation, a very short time in which to practise its own internal self-government. After all, from January until October in the same year is a very short time to have to take upon themselves the responsibilities of administration and political leadership. One wishes that some of the experience which is so necessary in these matters might have come a little earlier.
However, at the moment our task is not to dwell too much on the past, but to look to the future. We are at any rate encouraged by the quality of leadership in Northern Rhodesia. Those of us who know Dr. Kaunda, and have known him for some years, have the very warmest regard for him as a person and admire his strength of character and purpose. I was very glad that the Under-Secretary paid a tribute to Dr. Kaunda and spoke of his very strong sense of principle. I am sure that we all have the greatest confidence in him in his assumption of the task of Prime Minister, which he now exercises, and the probability that he will succeed in due course under this Constitution to the position of President.
I am also very much interested in the form of the Constitution. I will leave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) the details of legal significance, with which I do not feel competent to deal, but with which he is so closely familiar. On the constitutional side, I am very glad that we have at last some reality in constitution-making. It is many years since I myself modestly suggested in the House that the American Constitution had a good deal to offer to countries starting on their independent course, where a firm executive was absolutely essential and where the to-ings and fro-ings which happen in the Westminster pattern were not always very apposite.
It is all very well to criticise certain newly-emerged States—these criticisms have been made—and to suggest that there is an element of dictatorship in them, and so forth. To anyone with firsthand knowledge of the conditions in some of these countries it was quite clear that suddenly to plunge them into the Westminster pattern would not be easy and would not give the kind of


leadership and stability which was required. We have sometimes been far too complacent in this matter and have thought that, if we sent out a friendly delegation with, perhaps, a slightly smaller Mace than ours and a copy of Erskine May, bound in crushed Morocco, we were doing all that was needed in the way of constitutional help, I must add that in recent years there has always been one of the Clerks-Assistant at the Table to offer his advice on procedure and Standing Orders. All this was very helpful in its way, but it did not get to the root of the matter.
I am, therefore, very much interested in this Constitution, which is not completely on the pattern of the United States but which does at least bring in some of its features. In particular, the position of the President is very interesting. He is to have certain functions. He will normally preside over the Cabinet, and the Ministers will be responsible to him. On the other hand, he will not sit in the Legislature, although he may address it. This, again, is on the analogy of Washington. He can make his "State of the Nation" speech, but does not take part in the general hurly-burly of legislative debates. The President has certain delaying powers over legislation. He can send it all back if he does not like the look of it very much, but these powers are very properly circumscribed.
I very much hope that this pattern, which is a novelty in the Commonwealth, will result in a combination of firm government and firm executive and the democratic safeguards which we would all wish to find in the Constitution of any Commonwealth country.
The Under-Secretary mentioned the various safeguards which are already in. We have not got the Constitution before us, but we have the declaration of intention in the White Paper. We fully appreciate the Parliamentary reasons why we have to debate this Bill before we have the text of the Constitution. We are gratified to find that the Bill of Rights is to be continued, that there will be provisions for the judicial tribunal, and so on. I am sure that it is also very comforting for the Director of Public Prosecutions to know that his

office is included among those which are protected from reduction of emoluments, a position not enjoyed by Ministers in this House. With these safeguards for the judiciary and the public service we should feel, on the whole, gratified.
I do not think that it is for us to say anything further on the constitutional aspects. The matter has been fully discussed and agreed and is enshrined in the White Papers. However, I think that some reference should be made to the second of the two White Papers, the Agreement with Barotseland. This was not an easy Agreement to reach. All of us appreciate that. We on this side would like to express, as the Under-Secretary has expressed from the Government side, our appreciation of the connection between the United Kingdom—Her Majesty—and the Litunga of Barotseland. We fully recognise that it was painful to have to come to arrangements which perhaps had not been expected quite so soon.
On the other hand, we hope that with good will on both sides this new form of Agreement between the new Government of Zambia, as it is to be, and Barotseland will work and that with good will and some give and take on both sides there will be a happy and constructive partnership between them.
I turn to some of the other problems involved, because important though constitutions are, the stability of a country will depend very much on its economic and social development. We have been informed this afternoon that Her Majesty's Government propose to grant certain funds, some to go to the service of the debt which the Northern Rhodesian Government took over as their share of the Federal debt, a sum of just over £100 million. I gather that about £2¾ million of the amount to be made available will go towards the servicing of this debt. I am sure that hon. Members will want to know more about whether this amount will be anything like adequate.
Then there is the amount of £3 million which is to be made available towards the cost of compensation for former civil servants, on the lines of agreements made with various other Commonwealth territories. I was glad to hear that this is not to be the end of the story. We are


aware that Northern Rhodesia has some resources, particularly copper mines—which are not available to other countries, for example, Malawi, which is a much poorer country in terms of natural resources—but it would be a mistake if we supposed that because she derives an income from that source she needs no further assistance. The number of people employed in copper mining in Northern Rhodesia is, I understand, not more than about 8 to 10 per cent. of the population. This means that a large number of people are dependent for their livelihood on agriculture.
Anyone who has been to Northern Rhodesia knows the vast agricultual problems which are to be found there. There is now a considerable amount of unemployment and under-employment and no stable political or social system can be envisaged in circumstances where one has the probability of a large number of young men without any real prospects in life. It is extremely important, therefore, that there should be the fullest co-operation in economic development of all kinds.
I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary mention Northern Rhodesia's development plan and its emphasis on education and training. That is the basis of any future advancement. However, it is no use training people for jobs which are not there. So we are anxious that, when the time comes for further talks in the autumn, a generous attitude will be taken towards Northern Rhodesia, and we will not suppose that just because that country has certain advantages by way of mineral resources that is enough.
There are some projects which are dear to the heart of Dr. Kaunda. I had the pleasure of meeting some of his neighbours from Tanganyika today and they, too, are anxious that the project for the railway to link Northern Rhodesia with Tanganyika should go forward. There have been discussions with the World Bank about this project, which was received a little coldly, I understand. We have been told that this is something which both territories believe to be to their advantage and that it would open up land in both Northern Rhodesia and Tanganyika for agricultural development. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to see that this project is facilitated.
There is also the whole question of the British South Africa Charter Company. We will be interested to observe what happens in this case. The Royalties Agreement, which was made in 1949, expires in 1986. It is expected that it will be terminated and that the company will be bought out. Probably the greatest matter of interest in this connection is the amount that will be paid for it. There is an interlocking, so to speak, between the company and one of the two great copper interests in Southern Rhodesia and it is partly a question, I suppose, of paying out money from one pocket into another. All hon. Members will, I am sure, hope that when negotiations come about something fully advantageous to Northern Rhodesia will emerge.
There are two other matters of considerable importance. First, Northern Rhodesia has been generous already in dealing with refugees from other territories in Africa and I have no doubt that that country will continue to be so. However, I hope that Northern Rhodesia will not be expected to bear burdens which should be more equally shared. I know that Dr. Kaunda, while being anxious to offer asylum to anyone who is a genuine refugee, will be extremely cautious about allowing entry to those who are not refugees in the proper sense of the word, but who might be wishing to exploit the hospitality of Zambia.
The second important group of persons to whom the Under-Secretary referred is comprised of those who have given service in the public service of Northern Rhodesia, but who, because of the changed circumstances, may now have to leave that country and give up their careers. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been putting pressure on Her Majesty's Government to assist the civil servants concerned. We felt strongly that there are a number of people who have given good service and who undertook that service in Northern Rhodesia in circumstances in which it was impossible for them to foresee what the future would be; people who have felt that they have been hard done by.
Members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service are protected and have full resettlement rights. European members of the ex-Federal Service have had


arrangements made for them. It was primarily the non-designated civil servants about whom we were concerned. A number of them are in the middle ranks of the service rather than in the higher-up jobs; in positions which will be fully safeguarded.
We are glad to note from the Under-Secretary's announcement that somewhat better terms have been offered, and have now been confirmed. We are also glad to note that there will now be the possibility of a lump-sum payment, in addition to pension. I am still not clear how far this new concession will extend. I understand that it will be available to those who are superseded for promotion or who are required to retire because of Africanisation. It has been put to us that this concession should be available for those whose posts may be abolished altogether, and those who may wish to retire now because they foresee that if they do not do so their chances, owing to their age and other reasons, of obtaining comparable employment later may not be great.
I am sure that many hon. Members would like to make it clear that while we do not want in any way to be churlish over what has been offered—and it is certainly an advance on anything offered before—it seems that only a very little more might make all the difference to a number of people who entered the Service from Northern Rhodesia when they had the choice of entering it from this country. These people have not had the fullest compensation terms available to them because they wanted, before committing themselves to undertaking public service there, to see for themselves what the country offered. It seems a shame that people who were taking prudent action should be penalised for acting in that way. I hope that this concession is wider than it seems to be and that we shall have further assurances, but we are grateful to the Northern Rhodesian Government for the concessions which have been made.
As Dr. Kaunda's words have made clear, they are very anxious that there should be a friendly atmosphere and that they should proceed from one status to another in the friendliest way. We hope that no one will feel embittered

by the change. I very much hope that the Europeans, not only those in the public service, but others, too, who are living in Northern Rhodesia and serving in industry, commerce and the legislature, will feel able to contribute, each in their own way, towards the future of the country. The copper mines, for example, are bound to depend for a long time on the expertise of people from other parts of the world.
We very much hope that the good relationships which have been established in recent years will continue and that people of all races will work together for the happiness and prosperity of Zambia.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Like the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), I welcome the Bill, and I underline a point which she made—that for the first time we are debating a new type of Constitution, a diluted Westminster. The fact that the Zambian Ministers have borrowed certain aspects of their Constitution from the United States means that they have a good chance of continuing success with the Constitution.
The fact that Dr. Kaunda has decided to go straight into republican status is an excellent start for Zambia. The House will recall that in the past we have debated constitutions and independence Bills when the countries concerned have adopted a monarchical constitution. The constitution of such a country has contained many safeguards for minority tribes and minority races. About a year later the country in question has decided to be a republic. This has meant a short Bill in the House, and it has meant that all the constitutional safeguards which the House worked hard at have been torn up, with strict constitutional propriety.
That, I fear, is to happen to Kenya in the next few months. It is much better for everybody concerned that countries should follow the example of Zambia and go straight into a republican form of constitution, if that is what the people of the country ultimately intend.
I must admit that my welcome to the Bill is slightly overshadowed by the fact that it springs directly from the Northern Rhodesian Constitutional Conference of


January, 1961. It was that conference and the White Paper issued in February, the following month, which destroyed the Federation. As the House knows, I regret the destruction of the Federation. I believe that it is a disaster for which we and the people of Central Africa have not yet paid the full price.
The House will remember that in June, 1961, the Government went back on the February White Paper and the following month came the Southern Rhodesian referendum which approved the new Southern Rhodesia Constitution. After that, we had an unfortunate outbreak of violence in Northern Rhodesia, in September of that year the British Government announced that they were ready to consider further representations, and in the following year the Northern Rhodesian Constitution was finally agreed. This was a compromise solution.
This, in turn, led to the General Election of November, 1962, which was won by the United Federal Party, but which resulted in a Government by a coalition between the United National Independence Party and the African National Congress. That meant that Dr. Kaunda and many of his present Ministers were to have two years' apprenticeship before they took over the full government of their country. I think that we must all agree that during those two years Dr. Kaunda and his Ministers have worked unsparingly at their jobs and have set an excellent example to all the people in their country.
I mention the difficult years of 1961–62 because during that time there was a love-hate relationship between leading African politicians and this country. This relationship is probably typified better than anything else by a letter written by the students of a technical college in Lusaka to the principal. This is contained in a Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Disturbances in Certain African Schools in 1960. It is a short letter, and I should like to read it. It is addressed to the principal, and it reads:
We, your faithful students, are now your enemy, because for 12 months you have proved yourself an enemy of U.N.I.P. and of all true African people.
On Thursday you brought the police into the College with guns to kill us you must now die. Hodgson must always be U.N.I.P. and any principal must allow us FREEDOM.

No gaiting, no stupid rules, no punishments. These are the terms upon which we return. You are our enemy and never again will you be our principal. In a short time your head will not be on your body, and no one will ever find it. We burn down buildings, four at Hodgson. We will kill people. Remember our motto, 'Deeds, not Words'.
It is signed:
From your true and loyal U.N.I.P. students.
That typifies, amusingly and quite genuinely, the love-hate relationship of those years to which I have referred. I am glad to say that it has now given place to a genuine friendship between the political leaders of Zambia and this country. We all feel that Dr. Kaunda is largely responsible for the change in the relationship, and we all appreciate the great leadership which he has already given to his country—a leadership which, I believe, will contribute in the future to the betterment of the African Continent.
I want to pay a short tribute to another political leader who died in a motor accident in 1961—Lawrence Katilungu. He was the leader of the other African Party, the African National Congress, and I believe that had he lived many of the difficulties which we experienced in the 1961–62 period might have been overcome more quickly and that we should have reached the present relationship earlier.
My hon. Friend referred at some length to the problem of the European civil servants in Northern Rhodesia, who, we all hope, will remain to serve Zambia in the future. We owe them a special debt of gratitude for their service during the difficult periods to which I have referred. My hon. Friend said that the designated officers—there are only 2,000 of them—will receive good terms should they decide to leave Zambia or should they be superseded or their posts abolished. It is, therefore, to the non-designated civil servant to whom our minds mainly turn today.
My hon. Friend knows that a delegation of all parties represented their problems to the Government only yesterday, and I am sure that I am speaking for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say how pleased we are to hear that we already have confirmation that better terms are being offered to those officers. My hon. Friend said that they will be offered half the compensation


benefits which are offered to members of the Overseas Civil Service or designated civil servants if they are superseded or Africanised. I emphasise that we should like to see yet a further concession. It is possible that one of these posts might suddenly be abolished. It seems to me that if that happens the civil servant should receive the benefits which he would receive if the post were Africanised. After all, it is easy to abolish a post and then start it up again under a slightly different name two days later, and so avoid the commitment. I am not suggesting that the Zambian Government would do that, but I feel that the compensation offered to the non-designated civil servant should be extended to cover him if he wishes to leave the country on independence, or if his post is abolished as well as if his post is Africanised. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that he agrees to make representations to Dr. Kaunda's Government on that point.
I also understand that agreements have been reached that non-designated servants will be able to commute one-sixteenth of their pension for each year of their service and that the 10 per cent. increase in pay recommended by the Hadow Report has been agreed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would confirm this when he winds up the debate. Will he also confirm that designated and non-designated civil servants who leave Zambia will, if they wish, be able to avail themselves of the services of the Government resettlement bureaux?
The other problem of the civil servants concerns the marginal cases, those who believe that they should be designated but who have not been able to persuade the British Government to agree to their designation. In many cases, this is due to what appears to the uninitiated to be a minor technicality. For example, there are three administrative officers, who were labour officers, in Northern Rhodesia, who are definitely expatriates, but were promoted to their present posts without a reference to the Secretary of State as is laid down in the Regulations.
This failure to obtain the acquiescence of the Secretary of State was, I presume, an administrative oversight on the part of the Northern Rhodesian Government, but it has been cited as the reason why

these three officers could not be designated. This seems to me to be grossly unfair. If the Government make an administrative mistake which makes a great deal of difference to the compensation and pensions of these people they should not be allowed to suffer.
Then, again, there are six clerks who were recruited by the Northern Rhodesian Government from this country. They are not designated because the Northern Rhodesian Government omitted to make full use of the facilities provided by the Crown Agents. There are many similar marginal cases which appear to be purely technical. There is the obvious case of the widow, a stenographer, who was not designated because she was two and a half months late in her application. We agree that there must be rules, but I hope that they will be interpreted as generously as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend can persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation to look into these cases once again, because they cause a great deal of hardship and ill-will. I am sure that the House would not wish to see Zambia proceed to independence with a feeling in some cases that civil servants who have served this country and Zambia well have been treated unfairly.
Now a word about the future. As the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East said, Zambia is a wealthy country and as such she differs from many other African countries. It has been pointed out that agriculture is of great importance to Zambia and we all agree with this. But in addition to her agricultural worth Zambia has the Copper Belt, and this will act as a magnet to many other African States. It is clear that for this reason Zambia will need investment and technical assistance from this country, from Europe and America for many years to come. Therefore, I hope that she will consider for a moment some of the pitfalls that lie ahead.
There is the question of the British South Africa Company. Should that company be expropriated after independence, it would create a bad climate for future investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and I walked down Independence Avenue in Dar-es-Salaam a few weeks ago and saw a large number of offices of the revolutionary movement for


the liberation of various States in Southern Africa. It is said that they are all to be transferred to Lusaka. I hope that Dr. Kaunda will not allow the genuine emotion of African nationalism to take charge. Northern Rhodesia is the frontier between black governing Africa and white governing Africa and is, therefore, a very sensitive spot. This sensitivity could be increased by the incursion of Chinese Communism which has started at Zanzibar and is now moving across to the West Coast of Africa and may well be interested in the Copper Belt.
However, these are gloomy forebodings about the future of Africa and I am sure that the House will be at one in agreeing that Zambia has a great leader and has manifested the desire for co-operation between all races. I was privileged to go to the reception at Lancaster House when the last Constitution was being constructed and I was impressed by the excellent relations existing between the European Zambian M.P.s and the African Zambian M.P.s. Zambia could be an example of races living in peace and harmony, if only she will stand up against outside disrupting influences. She will need our help and I hope that we shall be generous in contributing manpower and, above all, investment and grants to Zambia in the future.
I wish her leader Dr. Kaunda and all the people of Zambia well. Before I sit down, may I add that I hope that the House will soon be debating the Independence Bill for the last of the three members of the ex-Federation, namely, Southern Rhodesia.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foley: The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in introducing the Bill, was kind, lavish and generous in his remarks about Dr. Kaunda and the future State of Zambia. Listening to him, one would have thought that the progress to independence had been a bed of roses. Unfortunately, the truth is exactly the opposite. On at least two occasions I travelled back to Zambia with Dr. Kaunda and he was subjected to indignities and humiliations at the Customs in Salisbury and N'dola. The Under-Secretary forgot to mention that it was this Government which was responsible for putting Dr. Kaunda into prison. His apprenticeship, like that of many other

leaders of the Commonwealth assembled in London, was spent in gaol under British auspices.
In spite of the reference to the kindness and generosity of Her Majesty's Government, the real truth is much more reflected in the words of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). He quoted a letter from a student at a school in Northern Rhodesia, and he referred to the love-hate relationship. This has gone on even in this House vis-à-vis this area. There are many in this House who refer to the protagonists of federation and supporters of Sir Roy Welensky as people who are all voice and no vision.
The Bill raises one particular question which I am glad to see, namely, that it offers a united Zambia on the occasion of its independence by the inclusion of Barotseland. Barotseland has always had a special place as a protectorate within a protectorate. Nevertheless, in the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Litunga during the last 14 years one has seen this strange mixture of love and hate. It was Her Majesty's Government who persuaded the Lewinika, in 1953, against his better judgment, to support the notion of federation. It was Her Majesty's Government who then knighted him as a reward and who referred to him as the Litunga. Since that day when we saw the inevitability of the end of federation, we tried to preserve this old feudal rule in Barotseland while, at the same time, dealing with the Nationalist Party of Dr. Kaunda.
The ignominity of it all was seen recently. This poor old man must be the most unhappy man in the whole of Central Africa. He is brought to London not to participate in the talks for independence, but at the end of these talks. He is brought in at ten o'clock at night to sign a document, which he does, which is reflected in this Constitution, whereby there is no Barotseland, whereby he has no power, whereby the Government of Zambia and the Nationalist Party have full control over Barotseland, as, indeed, they have over every part of Zambia. This is a reflection of the love-hate relationship so ably referred to by the hon. Member for Haltemprice.
I want to refer to the notion that Zambia is wealthy, that she is all right


and does not need help. Zambia has a great potential, but there are a number of things to be overcome. There have been at least 10 years of wasted effort in the Federation. I shall refer to them in a moment, but I want to refer particularly to the B.S.A. royalties which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and by the hon. Member for Haltemprice.
It is estimated that in 1963 the gross royalties of the British South Africa Company from Northern Rhodesia amounted to £12½ million. This produced a net return after taxation, and so on, of slightly more than £6 million to the company, and it is estimated that the results for 1964 will be even greater. These royalties arise from an arrangement made between Her Majesty's Government and the British South Africa Company way back in the past. I want to quote a speech made in the Northern Rhodesia Legislative Council in 1948, because I think that it should be of interest to the House.
In discussing the royalties, the speaker said:
The point I want to make, which is most important and to my mind thoroughly immoral, is that the people of this country, black and white, were completely ignored. I find it difficult to express in decent English my views of the actions of a Government of that nature that they should sell, give, barter—or whatever you care to call it—the mineral wealth of a country, for which they were the trustees, to a private company—without even consulting the people. It just shocks me to think of it. But what makes things worse is the fact that not only did they grant them the rights, but they granted the rights in perpetuity to the company.
Lest hon. Members may think that these words were the ravings of a rabid nationalist I add that they were spoken by Mr. Roy Welensky, as he then was, in debate in the Legislative Council.
The whole case of the B.S.A. royalties can be summed up in comments made by Dr. Kaunda in April this year, when he said:
It must never be forgotten that the circumstances under which the B.S.A. Company acquired these royalties—and the historical background to this question—places the whole question of royalties in Northern Rhodesia out of the normal commercial or industrial activities existing anywhere in the world today.

This is just one example of the constant drain on the resources of Zambia at a time when it needs this money and when it needs the help of this country to uphold its peoples.
A further example of this drain was the 10 years of Federation, when it was amply demonstrated that the Federal Ministers utilised the resources of Northern Rhodesia to build and develop the economy of Southern Rhodesia. There is ample evidence of this duplicity. In 1951, the Northern Rhodesia Government of the day had already done a great deal of research into the building of the Kafue hydro-electric development. They spent £½ million, and this was in a Protectorate of Her Majesty's Government and, presumably, financed from this country.
The money was spent on research and planning and on basic roads. Then the Federation comes along and Northern Rhodesia is promised that the development will continue—and the House will be aware the Kafue is well within the borders of Zambia. In 1955, suddenly out of the blue, Kafue is out and we have the Kariba Dam. Even Lord Lascelles, a member of the Commission which was at that time reporting on the subject, resigned in protest and Ministers concerned publicly stated that the decision to build the Kariba and not the Kafue Dam was a political decision. This was a political decision made to entrench the white minority in Southern Rhodesia and to preserve the privilege of white peoples in the so-called Federation.
This is some of the history with which we have to live in terms of looking at the problems of Zambia today. One could go on reciting this history but, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice has said, we must think of the future. I have travelled in different parts of Africa and I believe that I have seen in Zambia probably the greatest potential of any of the countries of Africa. I believe that in the leadership of Dr. Kaunda, in his Ministers and in the unity of his party there is great potential.
When we look at Africa as a whole and at the difficulties in the Congo at the moment, and recall the difficulties in East Africa earlier this year, I believe it right to say that we are all longing to be able to talk about a successful country in Africa. I believe sincerely that Zambia


has the ingredients of success. We and Her Majesty's Government in approving this Bill are not abandoning Zambia. We are establishing a new relationship. This will be reflected in the terms of a partnership of equals and in that partnership I hope that we shall be anxious to respond to the needs of Zambia. Those needs are enormous in the matter of technical assistance and training.
After 30 years of colonial rule and 10 years of Federal rule there are fewer than 800 men and women of all ages in the country who have an education equivalent to that of a holder of an O level certificate. It is an indictment of the educational system before Federation and it is, an indictment of this country that we have neglected Northern Rhodesia. Now that Zambia has achieved independence we must respond in the most generous way, not with words but with deeds. In doing so we shall be helping to make the country a success. The ingredients are there. Success now depends on the extent to which we have the will and the generosity to respond to the needs.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: These occasions are so often ones for the recital of platitudinous good wishes that I am very pleased that the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) quite boldly faced some of the problems. All of us, of course, give our good wishes to Zambia, but let us not ignore the difficulties.
Where I parted company with the hon. Member was in his recital of the difficulties with the Kafue Dam and his blaming of the Federation. He was unfair and inaccurate. I believe that the Kariba Dam scheme did a great deal for Northern Rhodesia. It was far more practical than the Kafue Dam scheme. I do not believe that the World Bank would have supported that smaller scheme, and it is because of the advantage of the Kariba Dam that we have now the possibilities of development in Zambia.
I agree that African education there proceeded at far too slow a pace in the years from 1953, but that, as the hon. Member rightly said, is not a charge that one can lay at the door of the Federation. The trouble was that the

Federation proceeded quickly with its educational programme and that the education provided by the Northern Rhodesia Government which was our responsibility went too slow.
A feature which I should like to emphasise is that I found far greater absence of racial prejudice in Northern Rhodesia than in other parts of Central Africa. It is to me a tragedy that the country which would have gained most by federation because of the absence of racial prejudice has probably lost most by the destruction of the Federation. It is a land-locked country where every ton of coal, every pound of explosive for the mines and every ton of copper which is exported has to go out either from Southern Rhodesia or to Southern Rhodesia, and it is vital that these two countries should be closely associated. I hope that after 24th October some form of economic association will be retained with Southern Rhodesia.
The tragedy in Africa today is, in my view, its balkanisation. Each country wants to try to go it alone. Sometimes every tribe wants to go it alone. Just as in the Balkans, in Europe, Russia first tried to introduce her influence and then gained control over the whole of the Balkans except Greece and Turkey, so today, in Africa, the Russian and Chinese Communists are vying for control. That is a danger which faces these young countries like Zambia when they become independent.
We make the mistake of thinking that once we give everybody the vote all the problems disappear. What is far more important is that the rule of law should remain and that there should not be corruption. The lesson, I am afraid, is that once the rule of law disappears there is tyranny. I have a very great appreciation of Dr. Kaunda and his high principles and, I believe, his very good intentions, but I hope that he will be strong enough to withstand the pressures. After all, Dr. Busia and Mr. Gbdemah were men of high principles and great wisdom, yet they cannot speak their mind in their own country. This is the lesson that we should not forget.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich was again inaccurate when he talked about the Litunga of Barotseland. He


was not brought to Britain. He was most anxious to come to Britain because he felt that Britain owed him an explanation of why it proposed to part company with him. I hope that we shall not find in days to come that the Litunga is in the same position as the Asantehene, in Northern Ghana, who finds that a tyranny has deprived him of all his power and that his tribe is deeply unhappy.

Mr. Foley: The difference is that in Ghana on independence a situation was inherited in which that gentleman still had some power. In the case of Zambia, we have deprived the Litunga of his power, and he discovered it only at the last minute.

Mr. Turton: I think that that is perfectly fair. What I am saying is that I hope that after 24th October Barotseland will not be as unhappy as the Ashanti is today. That is the message that I want to go out from this House to Zambia. We are full of good will, but certainly worried about its future.
I believe that this Constitution is better than the constitution we proposed before, because it is much more realistic. It is childish to believe than all Africa wants the Westminster model. I am as proud of this House as any hon. Member, but our constitution is not suitable for Lusaka any more than it is suitable for Accra. I believe that this Constitution is an improvement on it.
But let us remember that Zambia will not be able to survive unless she can be on friendly terms with neighbouring countries. The fact that Mr. Tshombe has now become Prime Minister of a united Congo will be of great help to her. I believe that Mr. Tshombe can and should co-operate with the rulers of Zambia in view of the Copper Belt which is between the two countries. I believe that there is some hope for the future on those lines.
I wish to say a few words about the Federal civil servants. In January, 1961, Dr. Kaunda gave a promise that when independence came he would ensure that fair treatment was given to federal civil servants. I think that the undertaking which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State announced today is a measure of implementation of that promise.

But I am still not happy about the position of the non-designated officers. I cannot see that it matters whether an officer is designated or not after independence.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the designated officers will get an inducement allowance of 15 per cent., half of which will be paid by the Government of Zambia, in addition to their salaries, whereas non-designated officers will get no inducement allowance. On the face of it, that seems to me unfair. But when we remember that added to that the designated officers will get children's allowances and air travel concessions for children to which non-designated officers will not be entitled it seems to me that this is quite wrong.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that the Zambia Government would pay half the lump sum and that, therefore, the British Government would make no contribution towards the non-designated officers' lump sum payment. If I heard him correctly, I think that that is very cheeseparing of the British Government. If Dr. Kaunda offers to pay half the lump sum, why cannot the British Government pay the other half, so that non-designated officers are in exactly the same position as designated officers? To make a difference between the two categories based on whether the officer was recruited in Britain or in the Federation is quite ridiculous. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will look into these points, because I believe that as these countries become independent Britain has a continuing obligation to the men who served them and got them ready for independence. I do not think that we are carrying out our obligations in that respect as generously as we should.
With those words, I wish good will to the Bill and to the future country of Zambia.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I agree with the final remarks of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) about the need for this House and this country to be generous to the civil servants who have loyally served Northern Rhodesian


Administrations over the past years. I believe that many civil servants in Northern Rhodesia have done an excellent job during a very difficult period when they felt that federation was being imposed on Northern Rhodesia against the wishes of the population. Yet they carried on with their jobs and did their best for the country in which they served.
I have every reason personally to be grateful to many individual civil servants in Northern Rhodesia who gave me great assistance during the visit which I paid to their country in 1959 and during the two days that I was in a rather bizarre situation when the Northern Rhodesian police force was protecting me against the Federal immigration officials who were doing their best to deport me. I should like to pay tribute to the provincial commissioner and district commissioner, who were particularly concerned on that occasion, for giving me every possible assistance during three or four very awkward days for both them and myself.
This is a very great and historic day for Zambia and also for this House, because we are granting independence to a territory about which there have been many exciting debates in this Chamber over the past 10 years. I feel that it is rather surprising that the Secretary of State himself has not been able to be here to introduce this historic Bill. I appreciate the way in which the Under-Secretary introduced it, and that the Secretary of State has apologised for his absence—I know that there is a Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference in progress, and that he has duties in respect of it—but, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State is in this country, I feel that he could have spared an hour or so to have at least launched the Bill here, although we appreciate that he could not have stayed for the whole of the debate. After all, he was free to come here and make a rather strange, in some respects, statement on Arabia, and I should have thought that he could have stayed on for a little longer to introduce this important Bill.
I join with other hon. Members on both sides of the House in wishing Zambia well in the future. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West

Bromwich (Mr. Foley) that that country has been handicapped considerably by the imposition of federation on it in 1953, against the clearly expressed wishes of the broad masses of the population. I believe that the way in which the Government, over the years, have continued to force this experiment of federation down the throats of the people of the territories is one of the most ignoble episodes in the whole history of this country. I am glad that reference has been made to this, because I think that it would be wrong for our friends in Zambia to believe that this House of Commons, on this great day, did not recognise the guilt of this country in holding back development towards democracy, which we have now acknowledged.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman must not presume to speak for every Member of the House.

Mr. Stonehouse: It is interesting that, although some hon. Members opposite have had the courage to admit that they were wrong in the past, when they opposed one-man one-vote democracy for Northern Rhodesia, at least one hon. Member still acknowledges that some members of the Conservative Party have their eyes looking backwards rather than forwards.
Generally speaking, I think that the people of this country welcome the fact that Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia, is to have its independence and that the freely expressed will of the people of that country, behind Dr. Kaunda and his colleagues, will be able to express itself in constructive economic development rather than wasting the energies of the leaders in political agitation which, although it has been necessary in the last few years, has taken them away from the job that really matters, namely, attacking poverty and backwardness in Northern Rhodesia.
I believe that we have a duty to continue to help this territory. We need to provide a considerable amount of economic and technical assistance to help it to overcome tremendous problems. It is wrong to assume that because of the copper mines in Northern Rhodesia Zambia will have an affluent society. That will not be the case, because many millions of people in Zambia live away


from the Copper Belt and depend on African subsistence agriculture, and in many cases they have been denied any real assistance to improve their technique. They have because of the lack of development on roads and irrigation schemes been unable to grow cash crops and so develop a little independence as has been the case in some other territories.
The amount spent on African agriculture, which amounted to £2½ million a year during the last few years, has been abysmally small, and needs to be increased. Zambia will need to get the money to invest in the development of agriculture on which the country will depend in the future, for the general raising of living standards will depend on channelling more of the copper companies' profits into these constructive directions. As the Monckton Commission pointed out, there is in Northern Rhodesia, and there has been over many years, an adverse balance of invisible payments because of the profits and royalties of the copper mines flowing out the the territory. Zambia is an under-developed country and many millions of pounds need to be spent on it. Rather than Zambia providing economic assistance for the developed countries, mainly Britain and the United States, we should be providing aid for Zambia.
Reference has already been made to the British South Africa Company, and I should like to refer to it in this respect. It is quite impossible for Zambia to afford to pay the extortionate royalties when it needs this money in its own boundaries to invest in agricultural development, on roads, irrigation, the Kafue Dam scheme, and so on. I hope that rather than have a long wrangle between the new Government of Zambia and the B.S.A. Company that company will decide voluntarily to renounce all its rights in respect of royalties from Zambia on independence day. For many years this company has been able to extract many tens of millions of pounds in royalties without giving very much in return. I believe that it should do this as a recognition of its good will towards the newest member of the Commonwealth and the newest independent State in Africa.
I would hope that the present Minister of Aviation, who is an ex-director of the

company, will use his influence on the company to persuade it to adopt this idea. T believe that eventually the Government of Zambia will have to act hard unless the B.S.A. Company co-operates. Rather than have that ill-feeling, it would be better for it to see the writing on the wall and reread what Sir Roy Welensky said many years ago, as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich.
The fact is that, although Zambia is to have political independence, there are many economic problems which it has to tackle and which it can only tackle as a result of having this Constitution, in which it can express its own desires. One of the principal tasks that it now has to achieve is the bridging of the gap between the European and African sections of the population. As the Monckton Commission Report indicated, the amount of income which goes to the European section of the population is greatly in excess of the income to the African population, although the Africans number 3 million against the Europeans' approximate 175,000.
According to the charts in the Monckton Commission's Report, the wages and salaries for the European, Asian and other people in the territory is £39 million and the wages and salaries for the Africans only £26 million, although they are many more in number. This was in 1958, the year that these figures were last available, although I believe that they largely apply today. The income from companies owned by Europeans is £5 million and from those owned by Africans only £2 million. The operating profits of companies which are almost entirely owned by Europeans are £29 million, a really staggering sum. As I have said, much of that money went through royalties to the B.S.A. Company or, through profits in the other copper companies, is leaving the territory. This gap between European and African incomes must be bridged.
It can be bridged partly by spreading more investment in African agriculture so that the hundreds of thousands of African families who live away from the Copper Belt can have an opportunity of improving their standards. It can also be bridged by opening opportunities for more Africans to participate in other activities than copper mining and


farming. All the other activities that go along with the commercial development of a territory should be open to them and I believe that through the development of co-operative societies many people would be able to obtain such opportunities and be able to help their country and themselves at the same time.
Much of the wealth that Western Europe is investing in the newly developing territories is invested with an idea of producing some sort of return for the investing country. Not only in relation to Zambia, but in relation also to many of the other newly independent countries with which we have special relations, we should now concentrate upon providing assistance which will enable them to do the job which I have been describing and increase the standards of the indigenous population and bridge the gap between rich and poor.
I should like to refer to the important question of Southern Rhodesia and to follow the closing words of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). The hon. Member hoped that we would soon have a Bill to grant independence to Southern Rhodesia. I echo what he said. I do not know whether he would agree with what I am about to say—that such independence should be on the same lines as that which has been granted to Malawi and as we are now granting to Zambia, namely, on a democratic constitution so that the majority can rule. I should be happy if the hon. Member agreed with me on that, because his influence with the Southern Rhodesian whites is considerable.
We are reaching an important stage concerning the situation in Southern Rhodesia when we are passing a Bill which grants independence to a country right on its borders. If it is right to grant independence on the basis of a one-man one-vote constitution for a country on the Northern shore of the Zambesi, would it not be right to grant a similar constitution to a country on the southern shore of the Zambesi? What is the difference between the two?
We are going through the process of granting independence to Zambia and I hope that the Europeans in Southern

Rhodesia will realise that their brothers and sisters in Northern Rhodesia will not be too adversely affected by it. In fact, their security and stability and the future of their families will be better served by having an African elected Government in Zambia. They will have a much better life in that country than with a Government which does not have the support of the majority.
It must have been a tiring business for the European families in Northern Rhodesia in the last few years during these tense periods when the Federation has been under attack. Now that it has been proved that in Kenya, in Zambia and in Malawi the Europeans are more secure as a result of a democratic constitution being granted, I hope that the Southern Rhodesian Europeans will not be so worried.
It will be important for Zambia to have good relations with its Southern Rhodesian neighbour. There are many services which they share. The Kariba Dam has already been referred to. The railways are of great importance in taking the copper from Zambia. It will be many years before the new railway which, I hope, will be built through Tanganyika can be completed. There are other common services which, I hope, both territories will continue to use—for example, the airways.
I hope that it will be possible for these countries to grow together rather than apart. I believe that their growing together can come only as a result of the granting of a democratic constitution in Southern Rhodesia. I hope that the Government will soon follow that course rather than listen to the petulant demands of a Government who represent a minority of a minority, as is the case of Mr. Ian Smith.
It would be wrong of the House to pass this Bill on Second Reading without paying tribute to the Monckton Commission, which produced a monumental Report giving us not only a wealth of detail about the economic and social circumstances of the three territories concerned, including a great deal of detail about Zambia itself, but which also made quite clear to the Government of the day that federation could not survive unless it was backed up by the use of force. That Report was a crucial stage in the turning of the fortunes of Northern


Rhodesia away from the terrible conflicts about constitutions, some of which we have had in scores of debates in the House of Commons, into, I hope, the constructive direction which can now follow as the result of the granting of independence.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Longbottom: In following the hon. Member for Wednes-bury (Mr. Stonehouse), I should like to express my hope that the next time he visits Northern Rhodesia, or Zambia, as it will be then, he will be less crowded than on his former visit.
It is always a pleasure to be in the House of Commons for debates on independence Bills. Informally, it is the final function of this Parliament in the granting of a new independence constitution, but it means much more than that in human terms. It means exchanging an outdated and outmoded relationship for something new and for something which we and the people pf Zambia can build together, a relationship much more applicable to the day and age in which we live than the one of which we are shortly to see the end.
On this occasion, it is more pleasant, too, because much of the path towards independence has been easier and smoother than in some of our other territories, despite some unfortunate incidents. I remember well the complaints that were made about the Constitution introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), when Colonial Secretary. Many people said that it was too difficult and complicated, but it proved itself to be correct inasmuch as it had the result of producing orderly transition and an African elected majority.
As other hon. Members have suggested, the main barrier to Zambian independence has been the Federation. Northern Rhodesia was the jewel of the Federation, because within its boundaries lay the rich mineral deposits from which the Federation sought a great deal of help for its budget. Had it not been for the intransigence of a number of Rhodesian politicians, we might well have been discussing this Bill for the independence of Zambia some time ago.
The Federation, however, has ended and Zambia can go ahead towards its independence unfettered by any ties not of its own making.
Nevertheless, what happens in Southern Rhodesia south of the Zambesi is bound to affect the future of Zambia. The hon. Member for Wednesbury rightly pointed out that in the Kariba Dam, in the railways and also in the airlines there are common services which have to be shared at present between Zambia and Southern Rhodesia. Therefore, what happens in the next few months in Southern Rhodesia will be of tremendous significance in giving the people of Zambia, we hope, a happy and peaceful start in their new country.
This is not the time, on this Bill, to argue closely the affairs of Southern Rhodesia, except to say that the only relationship in practical terms that can be satisfactorily built up between Zambia and Southern Rhodesia is one of equal status between independent Governments, and the more speedily African advancement can come in Southern Rhodesia and the greater degree of educational opportunity which can be given to the Africans in Southern Rhodesia, so much greater will be the possibility of a worth-while and lasting relationship between the peoples of Zambia and Southern Rhodesia. Zambian independence on 24th October could well be clouded by the foolish actions of short-sighted politicians south of the Zambesi. I hope that they will realise that African advancement cannot be halted south of the Zambesi with all the pressures of the continent of Africa behind political maturity and advancement.
But Zambia has a great start. It has the chance—this is the importance of copper in this context—a greater chance than perhaps any other country becoming independent in Africa, of becoming a viable economy. With our help it can achieve this. People refer to the Copper Belt, and all their eyes are upon the future of copper. But the rest of Northern Rhodesia has in the past few years been neglected by the Federation and there is an enormous development task to be fulfilled in all the areas of Northern Rhodesia outside the Copper Belt. Provided that we help to develop these other territories, then Northern


Rhodesia can become viable, it can help the other parts of Africa and it can be an example of orderly economic progress.
Thus, I think that the argument on copper as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned is that there should be more aid, rather than less, to help this economy become viable as speedily as possible. I hope that in the negotiations which my hon. Friend said are to take place this autumn Her Majesty's Government will, for this reason, look generously upon any plans for development which the Zambian Government may ask for help in bringing about.
There are three principal problems of development in Northern Rhodesia at the moment. One of the greatest difficulties is over the problem of unemployment among young people. In many areas, both rural and urban, but particularly urban, young people have very little chance of getting work straight after they leave school. I think that, on average, most of them have to wait three or four years after leaving school before getting worthwhile employment. The Zambian Government have already drawn up a team which has set up the idea of a national youth service. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be generous if asked for assistance to bring youth camps into being and so help to solve the problem of unemployment in that territory.
The second problem is one of great lack of urban industrial development, and I hope that in this context we can help in the setting up of development estates, particularly around Lusaka.
The third problem, which has been referred to by every hon. Member is agricultural under-development in some of the rural areas. All these are projects which, I submit, are worthy of aid attention by the British Government. We must also encourage—I hope that the Zambian Government will encourage—private capital to be employed in overcoming the problems of industrialisation in the urban areas.
The Department of Technical Cooperation has already been called upon for a great number of people to go out to Northern Rhodesia, particularly doctors, nurses and teachers. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) and I have been somewhat concerned

that, whereas these teachers and doctors have not readily been recruited from this country, the same difficulty has not been found in recruiting them from the Continent. This is not the fault of the Secretary for Technicial Co-operation, nor of the Department iself. It is something wrong within the system of advertising and putting across the opportunities which exist in Northern Rhodesia, the effect of which has been that too few of our people go out and take employment there. Northern Rhodesia is a fault which we have seen in this system, and I hope that we shall learn the lesson of it.
I believe that in the field of aid and technical assistance we can help Zambia have a viable economy and a worthwhile future and help it to make independence a happy reality. I should like to pay my own tribute, joining in what other hon. Members have said, to Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, to his party and to his Government. All the way along the line they have shown a great sense of purpose and of leadership and statesmanship, and I think that it is with confidence that on 24th October we can hand over independence to them. Wishing them well, and their people happiness, gives us an opportunity of starting a new relationship.
I do not share the nightmares of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I do not believe, as he said, that the background of Africa is suitable for the Parliament and the system that we in this country love, but, for the very same reason, I do not believe, either, that the background of Africa is suitable for a Kremlin type of institution. I think that Africa is developing, and will continue to develop, its own society. What we can do is not merely to grant those concerned independence, but, by aid and technical assistance, help them make their independence a reality.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Humphry Berkeley: I am glad that every speaker in the debate has paid tribute to the qualities of Dr. Kenneth Kaunda. He is a man of deep religious conviction, great strength of character and considerable firmness of purpose. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, like myself, have known him over a number of years, and I believe that all who have


been closely associated with him have been impressed at the way he has grown in stature throughout the constitutional evolution which has taken place in Northern Rhodesia. I rather regret that some of my hon. Friends and, indeed, the majority of the Europeans in Northern Rhodesia did not recognise the remarkable qualities of the man a little earlier. Had this happened I believe that we should have seen a more even progress towards independence.
I also echo the sentiments expressed by various hon. Members in relation to the Constitution which Northern Rhodesia has been granted. I and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), at the time of the debate on Kenya independence, suggested to the Secretary of State that a republican form of Government was preferable for an African State achieving independence within the Commonwealth. I am sure that it is right and proper that we should attempt to negotiate with a country approaching independence a constitution that is likely to be permanent and which that country accepts. If a constitution is changed within a year or two, it gives an impression of instability which, I am sure, all new nations would wish to avoid. I therefore welcome the straight transfer to republican status for Zambia on independence day.
However, I have reservations about one aspect of the Constitution. This is the provision for a number of European reserved seats exclusively for European electors. I believe that this has certain dangers which I hope in the case of Zambia may nevertheless be avoided. The dangers are obvious. In the first place, the most direct consequence of the existence of European reserved seats is to create, at a time when inter-racial co-operation becomes more important than ever, a distinct and definite racial division between the voters. That is a Pity.
Secondly, a possible consequence of the existence of such seats—and this will be the case in Zambia—is that the European reserved members will form an official opposition to Dr. Kaunda's Government in the independent Parliament. I believe that the behaviour of many of the European reserved members

has been moderate and sensible in the last few months, in particular the attitude taken by their leader, Mr. John Roberts. But the fact remains that they will be known officially in Parliament as the opposition and they will represent, by the very nature of the means by which they are elected, the European community exclusively.
There thus seems to be a danger that the European community in Zambia will be permanently identified with the behaviour and performance of their Parliamentary representatives who will, in time, possibly constitute the only Parliamentary opposition to Dr. Kaunda's Government—and an opposition which, by the very nature of things, will always be in opposition because the number of reserved seats is very small. That seems to be the danger of this type of constitution. I do not believe that the existence of these seats provides any guarantees which could not otherwise be obtained and there is distinct danger that the European community will be identified with opposition to the Government rather than with support.

Mrs. White: Am I not right in thinking that Mr. Roberts has publicly stated that he does not intend to lead his party as an opposition? In other words, within the limits of the Constitution, he will do his best not to give rise to the feelings the hon. Gentleman is describing.

Mr. Berkeley: That is perfectly true and that is why I paid tribute to his attitude. But the fact remains that the European reserved members will not be part of the Government and, therefore, in Parliament will be assumed to be, however statesmanlike their behaviour, the opposition. It is a great pity that the European community should be identified in this way as not supporting the Government of Dr. Kaunda. I suggest that, whatever advantages there may be in this concept of European reserved seats, there are disadvantages which on the whole outweigh them.
I want to direct certain remarks to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, particularly in relation to civil servants formerly employed by the Federal Government. No one in this House has done more than my hon. Friend to support the cause of expatriate civil servants overseas and, therefore, it is with considerable


reluctance that I must address to him remarks of a somewhat critical nature on this occasion. I do so in the full belief that, were he fully responsible for the actions of the Government in this respect, those actions would be substantially more generous.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in believing that the difference between a designated officer and a non-designated officer is highly technical and something which no one in common sense can really justify. It is the kind of distinction which, I suppose, is beloved among functionaries who sit in rooms in Treasuries all over the world, but I do not believe that it has any reality in terms of service or of worth. I would, therefore, wish to see the Government being more generous to non-designated officers.
But there is one type of officer to whom we have behaved quite disgracefully. I know at least one in Northern Rhodesia. He was recruited from this country to serve in Northern Rhodesia as a Colonial Service officer. On the creation of the Federation, he was seconded to the Federal Civil Service. In common with other civil servants to whom this happened, he received a circular letter from the then Secretary of State, the present Lord Boyd of Merton. That letter expressly said that it was the wish of the Secretary of State that those officers who had been seconded to the Federal Civil Service should opt to join it on a permanent basis. Therefore, the people who opted to do so were not only indulging in a personal preference but were responding in the affirmative to a direct request by the Secretary of State himself.
What is their position now? On the dissolution of the Federation, some of them have reverted to territorial service. The officer whose case I have quoted as an example is employed in the Secretariat in Lusaka. Because he followed a request of the Secretary of State, he is now in a vastly inferior position compared with someone who was not chosen in the first place to go into the Federal Civil Service but remained in territorial service. I can see no justification whatever for this arbitrary discrimination and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will add the public pleas of hon. Members to the private pleas we all believe he is making to the

Government to see that decency and honour are satisfied.
Finally, as three other hon. Members have done, I should like to refer to the consequences which the independence of Zambia will have upon the future of Central Africa and, in particular, upon the political future of Southern Rhodesia. I regret that we were not able to secure the agreement—if we tried—of the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers to the presence at the Prime Ministers' Conference of Dr. Kaunda from Northern Rhodesia and Mr. Smith from Southern Rhodesia. The subject of Southern Rhodesia could have been better discussed if Dr. Kaunda as well as the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia had been present.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice says that he hopes that the House will shortly be passing legislation to give Southern Rhodesia independence, what he must comprehend is that we would not today be discussing, with this general sense of unanimity, a Bill to give Northern Rhodesia independence if independence were to be given on the the basis of minority rule. One of the reasons why the Bill has commended itself to both sides of the House is that it gives effect to what we in this country believe in—that the wishes of the majority must be taken into account in deciding the type of government which a territory is to enjoy. After all, it was precisely because we recognised that majority rule was the sine qua non or independence that we refused to grant independence to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and it was because we believed that popular consent was necessary to maintain regimes that we took both Northern Rhodesia and Malawi outside that Federation.
The independence of Zambia will have a twofold effect on Southern Rhodesia. First, it will underline the absurdly high qualifications at present existing in Southern Rhodesia, on both the A roll and the B roll, for Africans to enjoy the franchise. As was implied by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Longbottom), we cannot in logic argue for representative government based on the concept of "One man, one vote" north of the Zambesi and a highly-qualified franchise designed to perpetuate white minority rule for a very long period the


other side of the Zambesi without there being a considerable conflict in policy. The first consequence of the granting of independence to Zambia is bound to be to make more obvious the constitutional anomalies which exist in the south.
The second consequence will, I hope, be more productive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said that he had never been to a territory in Central Africa so free from racial prejudice and racial strife as Northern Rhodesia. I have been there many times, and that is a view which I share. If we in London can see and appreciate in Northern Rhodesia, shortly to become Zambia, the creation of a society in which majority rule is conceded, in which an African majority governs and in which the races live together in harmony, might this not also be seen and appreciated in Salisbury? This I believe to be the greatest hope for the future in Southern Rhodesia.
At the moment my own view is that the mental attitudes of Mr. Ian Smith and his colleagues can lead only to disaster and death. What we have to hope for in Southern Rhodesia is a change of heart, and we must trust that this change of heart will come from a process of hope and not from a process of fear. If it can be shown, as I am convinced that it can, that the European can live in Zambia, without fear, under a black majority Government, that lesson may be learned, and learned only just in time, south of the Zambesi in Southern Rhodesia.

6.16 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: My hon. Friend the Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall) said so much of what I wanted to say that I had decided not to weary the House with any intervention, but I have been somewhat provoked by one or two things to intervene shortly in the interests of fairness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) said that he regretted that the Europeans in Northern Rhodesia had not earlier appreciated the work of Dr. Kaunda. It is a little unfair to blame the Europeans for that, because there was a time when Dr. Kaunda was hardly trying to get people to appreciate his work. Until he became Chief Minister, about two years ago, he was what one might call more a revolutionary than

an evolutionary leader. He has since changed very much. He has now become a statesman, and therefore much more worthy of recognition than at the time of which my hon. Friend was thinking.

Mr. Longbottom: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole basis of the policy of the United National Independence Party of Northern Rhodesia, led by Dr. Kaunda, was non-violence?

Sir R. Russell: That may be, but in those days he was not very good at preventing his party from causing violence. There is plenty of evidence on the record of violence caused by the United Independent Party, whether or not it was sponsored, or even approved by Dr. Kaunda. The fact remains that he has shown himself obviously worthy of the support of the Europeans, and he therefore commands our confidence in the future of his country much more than was the case only a few years ago.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) castigated the British South Africa Company for having taken a lot out of the country and, as he said, having done nothing for it. I have not looked up the history of the origin of copper mining, which, I believe, goes back to only 1926, but it is only fair to point out that if not the British South Africa Company, some other private enterprise, put a lot of money into starting copper production, whatever it may have taken out.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member has been misinformed. Copper mining in the copper belts of Katanga and Northern Rhodesia took place long before the Europeans arrived. If the hon. Member will read his early history, he will discover that the Africans were mining copper long before the first explorers arrived on the scene.

Sir R. Russell: But not on the scale which occurred when the Europeans came. That is the difference.
I support everything that has been said about the former civil servants and I hope that the Government will consider their position with the sympathy which my hon. Friend, with his own experience in years gone by, has shown for them.
Mention has been made of the economic position. One of the regrettable facts of the ending of the Federation


is the breaking of the economic links between the three territories. I hope that they will be resumed in some way or another as soon as possible. In the first of two articles, which appear in the Daily Telegraph yesterday and today under the name of Lord Casey, he regrets that most of the links of the Commonwealth are between this country and the various independent members of the Commonwealth rather than between those countries themselves. One thing that the Federation did was to create that link, even if only temporary, between Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—now called Malawi. I hope that before long those links will be resumed and that no loss of trade or economic co-operation between those countries will result from the ending of the Federation.
Like every other Member who has spoken, I wish all possible success to all people of Zambia.

6.21 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I want to add my congratulations and good wishes to the newly independent Zambia. I feel very strongly about this, because I spent many happy days in Northern Rhodesia and I find it a great pleasure even to be able to say a few words in our Parliament in support of this new country. Everything that ought to be said has been said about the economic requirements of Northern Rhodesia, and I hope that the House will be able to do what is necessary for it to become a thoroughly viable economy.
I am a little sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) made the remarks that he did about Dr. Kaunda. After all, even in this very ancient democratic Parliament we have a lot of people with past histories. I could take a long time going into those histories if I wanted to. The point is that people who start off with rather revolutionary ideas learn by experience. There is no substitute for experience, and it must be a great pleasure to everyone who has watched the development of Northern Rhodesia that it has a man of Dr. Kaunda's qualifications to lead it.
As I have said, we may all start off with revolutionary ideas. When I was

Member of Parliament for Wallsend I was sometimes called a Communist. That did not worry me in the slightest. But it was a little unfortunate that this point should have been mentioned. However, I do not suppose that it will worry either Dr. Kaunda or Northern Rhodesia.

Sir R. Russell: I would not have mentioned it if it had not been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley).

Dame Irene Ward: I know, but one thing leads to another. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Longbottom) is a new Member, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South is a Member of much longer standing. Sometimes, however tempting it is—and perhaps I should not be the person to say this—it is probably just as well to let sleeping dogs lie.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Cats.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Member says "cats". I rather enjoy being called a cat. It does not worry me a bit.

Mr. Bence: I was not referring to the hon. Lady.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Member referred to cats, and I naturally thought he was referring to me.

Mr. Bence: No. not ac all.

Dame Irene Ward: I want to say a few words about non-designated civil servants. I am not at all certain that it was not his past history that persuaded the Government to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary his very important job. Sometimes it is most helpful to do that. But has it never occurred to Her Majesty's Government that it is not a very good example to a newly emerging territory to find the Mother of Parliaments treating a section of the community in what most hon. Members who have spoken today consider to be a most ungenerous way. I am a great believer in example. Her Majesty's Government are not setting a very good example to those in Northern Rhodesia who will have to be responsible for their own civil servants in the future if the Mother of Parliaments treats those for whom she has some responsibility in an ungenerous way.
I regret that this should have been the attitude of Her Majesty's Government.


I know very well how it arises. Her Majesty's Government are never interested in these details. I doubt very much whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—for whom I have a great admiration—really even put the case of the non-designated civil servants to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if he had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being a very fair man—if one can get at him—would have responded.
I am sure that senior Cabinet Ministers never take enough trouble really to find out how strongly back benchers feci about these matters. It is very regrettable that back benchers on both sides of the House—and also the Front Bench opposite—should have said, on a day which must be a great day for Northern Rhodesia, that Her Majesty's Government are treating unfairly the non-designated civil servants. I do not know quite how we shall be able to get out of this dilemma.
On the few occasions that I have been in Africa one of the things that has given me the greatest pleasure was to see, even during the period when the territories were working towards independence, the wonderful service that the colonial civil servants were giving to the Africans who were to take over positions of great responsibility. One learns from such an example what mutual co-operation really means. To leave this group of non-designated civil servants in the way in which they have been left brings no credit to Her Majesty's Government.
It is awfully difficult to have to knock a friend, but it sometimes has to be done, and I am going to do it. We heard from the former Prime Minister about the wind of change. I was one of those people who supported him in his reference to it. It is a funny thing, but the wind of change never has to be applied to Her Majesty's Government in relation to Treasury matters, although it has to be applied to everybody else. It must be accepted by Europeans in Africa, and a great many of them have been absolutely magnificent in consenting to being borne along by it. I wish that when the wind of change is invoked there could be a wind of change in the Treasury. I do not know how one can get out of one wind into another and I want it to be all one wind. It certainly is not, I think, a case of a wind of change for Africa and

the Africans. These people have given great service in Africa and they are now our responsibility and I feel that this treatment is very ungenerous.
I know that what I say will not make any difference, but I wish to comment that I have heard my hon. Friend, the Duke of Devonshire and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State argue that this has been the decision of five Governments. I do not care whether it was the decision of 20 Governments, Her Majesty's Government ought not to have agreed to it. If back-bench Members of Parliament could know a bit more about what was going on, I do not think that the Executive would make so many ungenerous gestures towards people for whom we have a responsibility.
I know that what I say will make no difference, but when I discover that these non-designated civil servants have not the right of application to work in the home Civil Service I feel that I should like to bring a wind of change into the home Civil Service. Those in this country have no idea how lucky they are. We ask people to go abroad to seek adventure and to serve overseas. That is a spirit which I support. I like the idea of people going to serve in various capacities all over the world. But their future should be protected by the home-based people. How are we to recruit young people and persuade them to accept responsibilities all over the world, by serving in the Army, in the Air Force and in the Navy, if we applaud the effect of the wind of change in relation to other people but do not care for the future of those for whom we have a responsibility?

Mr. Bence: There will be a wind of change in October.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) says that there will be a wind of change in October. My goodness! It will be a wind from the North Pole. I had a great deal of experience in 1945 in listening to what was said about the wind of change that was coming for this country and that wind of change nearly blew this country off the map—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Lady say earlier that one thing leads to another. I am afraid that the ultimate progress is to get out of order.

Dame Irene Ward: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with you, but I did hear the hon. Gentleman say that there would be a wind of change in October. You would not expect me, with my revolutionary ideas, not to take up that matter. If an interjection comes from an hon. Member opposite, I establish my right to a democratic reply, which is what we are trying to ensure will happen in Northern Rhodesia. That is a very good example, but I will not pursue that subject because I have said all I want to say.
Now that so many hon. Members from both sides of the House have spoken so strongly I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure as soon as possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows a little more about his responsibility to these non-designated civil servants than, quite obviously, he knows at present. I want that assurance from my hon. Friend. I am getting very tired of having to argue for group after group of people who never seem to have any priorities;. It is true, of course, that some concessions have been announced today. When in Tanganyika, last year, I talked to a number of our own colonial civil servants. They felt, however much they could help the Africans—which they were delighted to do—that human nature being what it is, if they did not get back to this country before they were 40, they would not be able to secure anything like a comparable job.
We should not expect these non-designated civil servants to gamble with the futures of their families. They will not have any money to put down as a deposit to buy a home even if they manage to get a job here. Probably they have no money to buy furniture. They are responsible for the education of their children. We are asking too much of these non-designated civil servants. Whatever the concessions, it is all a bit in the air. We do not know what jobs may suddenly be declared redundant in Zambia or whether the jobs will be "Africanised", or whatever it is that is to happen to them, or whether promotions are to be superseded. We are asking too much of these people. They come to this great Mother of Parliaments and say that we have to do something to help them. I agree that we should. I do not quite know what we can do.
I wish to know whether my hon. Friend will convey this to the Chancellor. After all, my right hon. Friend has never had to serve in some of the services abroad where we have encouraged people to work. Having encouraged them, we have to see to it that we do not let them down, because they have done a great service for this country as well as for Africa.

6.37 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: Practically everything that can be said in this debate on this topic has been said. As we do so often in this House of Commons, we have brought to bear, from both sides of the House, a great deal of knowledge and expertise on the subject under discussion. I think that I am the first to take part in this debate who has not actually been in Northern Rhodesia. I am glad to say that I have been in a great many African countries on a number of occasions and for considerable periods of time. It is my great regret that I have not been to the new country of Zambia.
I wish to follow the gay, colourful and incisive speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in putting to the Minister the question whether there really is a logical and, shall I say, a moral justification for the distinction which he and his colleagues draw—and, I understand, persist in drawing—between the status of the designated and the non-designated civil servants.
After all, they have done the same work and rendered the same service, in a number of cases I suppose for the same length of time. At the end of it all one finds himself in a position of very great disadvantage in pecuniary and other terms compared with the other. What is the moral justification for that? Each has to provide for his family. Each has to take thought for the future.
The Minister has been asked, both by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth and by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and by other hon. Members, to consider whether he ought not to make further representations on behalf of these non-designated civil servants, at least in the case of those who, because their employment comes to an end instead of being Africanised, will not qualify under the


new offer which has been made for even the half compensation available to those who are replaced as the process of Africanisation goes on.
I come to the main subject of our debate, after discussing what, as it were, is a side topic. The main subject is the very important and historic fact which we are commemorating, the arrival of yet one new country to complete independence, the new country of Zambia. At the risk of trespassing against the injunction uttered by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I wish perhaps to be platitudinous in saying without reserve and without qualification that I wish that country and its splendid ruler well. There have been unhappy chapters in its development. There have been frictions and discord and worse, which have led up nevertheless in the aggregate to making possible this great event, the transfer of complete sovereignty from this country to that country.
Again without qualification and without looking too far back into the past, as the hon. Member for Tynemouth rightly advised us that we should not do, I say that I greatly value and admire the record of service of Dr. Kenneth Kaunda and his colleagues. During the last two years through much of which he was Chief Minister and, since January, 1964, Prime Minister, he and those around him have done an enormous amount to make it possible to do what we are doing today. He has built up that country and created conditions in which, with complete confidence on the part both of the inhabitants of that country and those of us here who look on what is happening, complete sovereignty can be handed over. All of us, on both sides of the House, are glad to welcome this new country among the comity of nations as one of the independent Commonwealth countries.
We have just seen Malawi celebrate its independence and I understand that Dr. Banda is now on his way to this country to take his seat among the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The time-table for the declaration of Zambia's independence has not made that possible for Zambia's Prime Minister. I gather that 24th October,

1964, was chosen chiefly because it is United Nations Day. Had it been possible for Dr. Kaunda to take his place in the council chamber when Commonwealth Prime Ministers discuss the manifold problems which lie before them, I feel certain that his wise, prudent and moderate counsel would have been greatly appreciated by his colleagues in the difficult days which lie ahead of them, particularly in those difficult days when no doubt they will be discussing the question of the independence of Southern Rhodesia—when it is to come, what form it is to take—which, I suppose, is one of the most baffling problems which lie before them today. His counsel would have been of inestimable value to them. It is unfortunate that inevitably that counsel will not be available to them.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East in her opening speech made reference to one or two of the economic aspects attendant upon the birth of this new country to complete independence. It is true that it has the great advantage of the Copper Belt, but it is also true, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that the Copper Belt supplies employment for only 8 per cent. of the employable population. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) was right to remind us, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), that there is nevertheless a serious employment problem in Northern Rhodesia. The hon. Member for Lancaster pointed to the urgent need for economic and technical assistance in the first place in providing employment and in creating conditions of stable and full employment in that country, and in the second place the development of urban expansion which will be necessary as the country advances on its way to prosperity.
The output of the Copper Belt supplies, I believe, 90 per cent. of the exports of the country. The country sets sail under fair auspices. I think I am right in saying that it has been able to balance its Budget during the present year and it has obvious economic advantages which differentiate it from the neighbouring country of Malawi, whose situation economically is far more difficult. I wanted to devote my remarks, however, not so much to the


economic situation in which this new country emerges to independence as to asking one or two questions—certainly not in a critical spirit, but purely in an inquiring spirit—about the constitution which will emerge when the new constitution is put in hand. What we are discussing is the terms of the Bill which paves the way to the constitution which has been agreed after full discussion between Dr. Kaunda, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Nkumbula and the British Government.
I wish to put one or two questions in a spirit of good will and purely of inquiry. No doubt every aspect of the situation has been carefully considered and rehearsed in the course of the discussions. I should like, however, to ask what is the object of putting an end to the Constitutional Council which finds its place in the January, 1964, Constitution? I was a little surprised, although no doubt there is a very good reason which commended itself to those taking part in the discussions at the provision for a tribunal which supplants the Constitutional Council. The new agreement provides that if seven members bring to the notice of the Speaker a particular Measure passed by the Assembly the Speaker will inform the Chief Justice, who will appoint the tribunal of two judges to consider the question whether or not the particular Measure in question is inconsistent with that very important section of the existing constitution which deals with human rights.
The agreement set out in the White Paper goes on to provide in paragraph 3(c):
if the tribunal reported that the bill appeared to be inconsistent with the code of human rights, the President would be able …
—to do one of three things. The first of those three things is to assent to the Bill. I am sure there is a very good reason for that. No doubt the reasons were fully explored in the conversations which took place. Prima facie, however, and I emphasise that I put the question purely in order to obtain information, this possibly gives rise to the apprehension that the solidly entrenched position of the provisions for human rights in the existing constitution is however slightly nevertheless to some extent impaired.
I was glad that some hon. Members referred in the debate to the position of the President, who I suppose will be Dr. Kaunda, as not following the model of the Prime Minister which we know in this country. If one looks at the various provisions of the agreement which set out the position clearly one sees that he is much nearer to the American type of President than to the British Prime Minister. He changes with the dissolution of a Parliament, he has a responsibility for policy, he is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and he clearly is not merely the titular President which characterises some constitutions. That, I think, a very useful provision in the formulation of the Constitution and I was very glad to see it. I was glad that hon. Members on both sides of the House called attention to its insertion in the proposed Constitution.
I should like to know why paragraph 58 of the Agreement provides that the Consolidated Fund provisions of the existing Constitution are to be superseded. The present provisions in sections 92 to 99 of the Constitution are not dissimilar to those to which we are accustomed in this country. As in this country, section 97 of the existing Constitution provides that the salaries of judges are to be charged on the Consolidated Fund. We are used to that as a constitutional device, and we regard it as one way in which the complete and absolute independence of the judiciary is buttressed. The salaries of our judges are not carried on the Vote of any Department, but are a charge on the Consolidated Fund. I wonder why—and I put this simply in a spirit of inquiry—it was thought desirable in the new financial arrangements that are to be embodied in the Constitution that is to come into force, that an end should be put to the existing Consolidated Fund.
I do not know, and I have not been able to discover from the existing Agreement, whether there is not a comparable provision to be introduced to guarantee the salaries of the judges, although there are some indications that there may be an intention that that should be done. I hope that it will be done, and I feel certain that the wisdom of Dr. Kaunda and his colleagues has already considered it. As one of Dr. Kaunda's many well


wishers in this country, I am sure that he would share the very great concern we all have that the judiciary in his country as in ours will be, and will remain, completely and absolutely independent of any possible outside pressures. I raise the question of the Consolidated Fund simply to emphasise, and draw attention to that rather important point.
I should like now to make one or two slightly technical points on the Bill itself. I do not know whether the Minister—if he has the permission of the House to speak a second time, as I hope he will, if only to reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth who challenged him—will be able to tell me what provision in the Bill continues in being the existing Constitution until it can, after independence, be amended so as to accord with the provisions of the Agreement. If it is Clause 2, what words in Clause 2 do it? Is it the word "instrument"? Is the Constitution regarded as an "instrument" within the meaning of that Clause? Purely as an act of drafting, I think that it would have been much easier to make clear to the reader that the Constitution is preserved in being by more direct language, rather than by an indirect allusion, if it is one, in the word "instrument" in Clause 2.
There is also the question of the retention of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which I was extremely glad to see. I think that many people feel that perhaps the future rôle of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council might be to be really an ultimate court of appeal for the Commonwealth, charged with the duty of evolving law common to all Commonwealth countries, or common to most of them—it differs in some, as we know—and keeping it one coherent whole applicable everywhere; and that the Judicial Committee as a Board would rise in status and stature as the Commonwealth continued to expand and add new members to its numbers.
Technically, I suppose that the Board would have to tender its advice, not to Her Majesty but to the President of Zambia, just as it is tendered at the moment, to the President of Nigeria, for example. The Committee would need to have special powers given to it to do that, as the Board at the moment has the

jurisdiction of hearing complaints by subjects of Her Majesty. This would be a new jurisdiction as, indeed, the jurisdiction to hear appeals from Nigeria is new. I suppose that it is intended by Order in Council under Clause 5 to give the Board that new jurisdiction, but I should like to know whether that is the case.
The only other point I want to mention is the Agreement with Barotseland. I do not know whether, in the course of the discussions on the Agreement with Borotseland, which finds its place in Clause 8, the device was considered that was used in the case of Uganda. There, equally, one had the situation in which constituent countries had to be dealt with, and the device was adopted to give the right of appeal direct from the High Court of Uganda, in that case, to the Privy Council.
Again, that is a provision that enhances the status of the Privy Council, and I should like to know whether consideration was given to that as a possible constitutional device when the status of Barotseland was considered. I do not say that it should have been adopted, and if it was not adopted there were no doubt ample reasons for that decision. I can see reasons why it was not adopted, but I should like to hear the Minister's reply, and know what the thinking was.
I have thought it right to raise these matters, but I would conclude by reechoing what has been said several times, but not too often, about our feeling of the solemnity of an occasion which witnesses the coming into the circle of Commonwealth countries of yet one more member. We greatly hope that this new member will move forward to prosperity, that it will be an example to be followed by others, and will be attended by success in the many centuries—and, I hope, thousands of years—of its future existence.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Tilney: By leave of the House, I should like to try to answer at least some of the questions that have been put to me. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) will forgive me if I write to him on some of the technical points he raised, especially as there are a number


of other questions that I want to answer in full.
I know that the House was much interested in what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). Her first question was whether the sum to be given to Northern Rhodesia was adequate. That point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Longbottom), among others, and it is something that we shall have to discuss in the coming autumn.
I found myself in considerable agreement with the hon. Lady when she talked of the vast agricultural problem that besets Northern Rhodesia. I do not believe that it exists only there, but that it is a problem over which the whole Western world has to help Asia and Africa. Wherever one goes in Africa—and, to some extent in Asia, too—one finds the problem of a growing urban proletariat ripe, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said, for Russian and Chinese vying for control. I only wish that it had been the Tynemouth ex-Wallsend brand of Communism fighting for control. That is what is happening all over the world, and there are those of us who think that there might, in the coming years, be a fifth freedom, which is the right to work.
All this costs a great deal of money, and I only wish that this country had the capital that we would like to be able to provide for these many necessary schemes. One of the schemes must be to try to keep the people on the land and away from the drift to the towns; to keep them in touch with the soil, and see that the soil produces greater wealth-much greater wealth. Whether we talk in terms of the co-operative system, the plantation system, or some other way, all these countries in Africa need that sort of help and guidance but, as I say, it costs a great deal of money.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East and some of my hon. Friends spoke about designated and non-designated civil servants. This is a very difficult problem. A line must be drawn somewhere. In my opinion, the Northern Rhodesian Government have gone a long way; in fact, they have gone further in the way of help than many other countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked about the

one-sixteenth commutation. I confirm that what my hon. Friend said was correct. There is an improved commutation of pension for non-designated officers and ex-federal officers who opt to non-designated terms. The entitlement is to commute an additional one-sixteenth of pension for each completed year of service after the operative date, namely, 10th January of this year, and up to a maximum of two-sixteenths.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) referred to the massive royalties which have been received by the British South Africa Company, which we all know as "the Chartered Company" What hon. Gentlemen forget is that the Company was formed in 1889 and the first dividend which was ever paid was in 1924. This has some slight bearing, too, on what the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) said. Incidentally, I regret that the hon. Gentleman attacked my own chief, the Secretary of State, for not being present. I understand that the Ngoni have a proverb which says:
A chief is like a rubbish heap. Everything gets thrown on to it.
That seems to some extent to be the position of my right hon. Friend at the present time.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury complained about the profits. He urged a levelling down. He made a general, socialising speech. He said, or implied, that the people of Northern Rhodesia had been mining the copper for years before the Europeans came.

Mr. Stonehouse: That is true.

Mr. Tilney: It may be true that they were mining copper oxide off the surface. It was not rich. The mines now in operation go down 4,000 ft. It costs a great deal of money to sink shafts to anything like that depth. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, he would frighten off all private enterprise from investing in any of the developing countries. I should like to see it done in partnership as much as possible with the developing countries, but at present scores of millions of pounds of private enterprise money goes overseas every year, to the mutual benefit of this country and the developing countries.

Mrs. White: Would not the Under-Secretary agree that there is a great difference between possible returns on the


exploitation of mineral rights and the payment of royalties? After all, the people who are getting the copper from 4,000 ft. down are not the Chartered Company. They are Selection Trust and Anglo-American. It is a very different matter when it comes to the payment of royalties.

Mr. Tilney: I do not want to pursue the historical argument about how the royalties came into being. The present position of the Chartered Company rests on the 1950 Agreement, to which the British Government and the Northern Rhodesian Government are parties. We remain a party to the Agreement until independence and will be ready to lend our good offices in any way that may contribute helpfully to the future relations between the Northern Rhodesian Government and the Chartered Company.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, also referring to designated and non-designated civil servants, complained that the British Government were being a little mean about not paying towards the compensation terms. Her Majesty's Government never do pay lump sum compensation for non-designated officers, who are always regarded as the responsibility of the local government. For Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service officers, for whom the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been directly responsible, Her Majesty's Government pay half the compensation, and the local government pay the other half. I think that the Northern Rhodesian Government are being extremely generous in their treatment of the non-designated civil servants.

Mr. Turton: The point is that in the case of Northern Rhodesia the difference between "non-designated" and "designated" is a vastly different matter from the problem which faced Her Majesty's Government elsewhere in the Commonwealth. That is why, as the Northern Rhodesian Government are making a generous offer, the British Government should be equally generous.

Mr. Tilney: If my right hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Cooperation, who deals with these matters.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) whether these officers would be entitled to apply for the home Civil Service. I will make inquiries about this and write to my hon. Friend after I have gone into the matter with the Civil Service Commission. The Overseas Services Resettlement Bureau will be available to help the non-designated civil servants, just as much as it helps the designated ones.

Mr. Henry Clark: Is not the very fact that the Overseas Services Resettlement Bureau is to be allowed to assist these men full recognition of the fact that they are being driven out of their jobs and coming back to this country? Is it not completely unrealistic to continue to divide these officers into two classes, even in spite of past history?

Mr. Tilney: I am sure that note has been taken of what has been said on both sides of the House. I state what the position is at present. The hon. Member for Wednesbury said that European salaries were too high.

Mr. Sronehouse: The Under-Secretary misunderstood me. African salaries are too low. It is the gap.

Mr. Tilney: The hon. Gentleman referred to the great gap between European and African salaries and virtually implied that the salaries of Europeans were too high, as I understood him. Naturally, one would like everyone to have greater incomes, but where does it come from? It can come only from production and trade. If the hon. Gentleman tries to make conditions for Europeans more difficult in many countries, we shall not get the people that expand trade and production, to the benefit both of this country and of the developing countries.

Mr. Stonehouse: I accept that, but is the Under-Secretary not aware that in the past Africans have been working alongside Europeans, doing almost exactly the same jobs, but receiving about 10 per cent. of their incomes?

Mr. Tilney: That is hardly a matter which comes under the Bill. Zambia will be independent at the end of this year and it is up to the Zambian Government to produce what legislation they wish.


I was delighted to be knocked about, as it were, by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. I do not believe that the Treasury has been as unfriendly as she makes out. Certainly, in the last few years much more money has been forthcoming to Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service; but I promise that I will see that the points she made are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Cooperation.

Dame Irene Ward: And the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Tilney: The hon. Member for West Bromwich was a little unfair about the agreement with the Litunga. There were long and patient negotiations with the Litunga before he came to London. For these we provided, at our expense, legal advisers, one of them being one of my hon. Friends, and an administrative adviser. It must also be borne in mind that the Independence Conference was confined to political parties.
The settlement—namely, the Barotse Agreement of 1964—is, I believe, a very fair one in the circumstances. As to the basic premise that Barotseland is to become an integral part of Zambia, the Litunga has not lost much power. He still has very considerable power inside his domain, and it is right to say that we have not deprived the Litunga of this power. It was a freely negotiated agreement.
I turn to some of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport. He is not the only Member of this House not to have been to Northern Rhodesia. My aeroplane had just landed at Livingstone and I was hoping to see the Victoria Falls. Unfortunately, the plane was late and night had fallen. That was the nearest I have ever been to that splendid country.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport made a number of points about the Constitution and since I doubt whether I will be able to answer all his points at such short notice, I hope that he will allow me to write to him. He asked about the Constitutional Council and I can assure him that there is only one such Council, namely, in Southern Rhodesia. The present one had failed to commend itself to the Northern Rhodesian

Government and it was not considered at the Conference that its retention was of any great importance.
It would be as well for the right hon. and learned Member to look at paragraph 3 of the Conference Report. He will see there the compromise formula whereby seven or more M.P.s can represent that a Bill conflicts with the Bill of Rights and that the Chief Justice would then appoint a tribunal of two High Court or retired judges. That is quite a reasonable solution to this problem. If the tribunal thinks the submission frivolous or vexatious, it need go no further. If, however, it reports an apparent inconsistency with the Bill of Rights, the President can consent to the Bill, refuse to consent to it or can return the Bill to the Assembly.

Sir F. Soskice: What slightly surprised me about it was that if the tribunal reported that the Bill appeared to be inconsistent with the Code of Human Rights, the President is given the power, nevertheless, to accept it. That was the question I put to the Under-Secretary. I wondered why, even though the tribunal might report that the Bill was inconsistent with the human rights provisions, it would be possible for the President to accept it.

Mr. Tilney: I understand that this was a compromise agreement; that there was considerable argument about it, but that this is the position as it stands at present.
I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport in the tribute that he paid to both Zambia and Dr. Kaunda. Yesterday morning, at Westminster Abbey, I was privileged to take part in the thanksgiving service for the independence of Zambia's Neighbour, Malawi. Coming out, the congregation were halted for a short time some way short of the great West Door. I looked down at my feet and saw, on the massive black marble slab, the golden lettering:
Brought by faithful hands over land and sea, here rests David Livingstone, missionary, traveller, philanthropist; Born March 19th, 1813 at Blantyre, Lanarkshire, died May 1st, 1873 at Chitambo's Village, Ulala.
Fourteen years before Dr. Livingstone had sailed from my own City of Liverpool, at a time when the Zambesi was virtually unknown to European man.


He had died in a corner of what was to become, for a time, Northern Rhodesia, and this year Zambia. Two faithful and tough Africans had carried his embalmed body, wrapped like a bale of cloth, 1,500 miles to the coast. There is an Ila saying, "An axe shaft is made out of an ordinary piece of wood". But what a path has been hewn since then. These two Africans were ordinary men. But what an act of friendship—what an inspiration for joint endeavour in the years to come.
I read on. The proud phrases have, perhaps, a somewhat Victorian ring to them now:
For 30 years his life was spent in an unwearied effort,
Ho evangelize the native races.
To explore the undiscovered secrets,
To abolish the desolating slave trade".
Modern civilisation has come. The maps have been made. Slavery has gone. I think David Livingstone would have rejoiced were he here today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hugh Rees.]

Committee Tomorrow.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(OBSCENE ARTICLES INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION FOR GAIN.)

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, at the end to insert:
(3) Where an article is seized under section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (which provides for the seizure of obscene articles kept for publication for gain) and a summons is issued under subsection (3) of that section, if the person summoned or any other person entitled to appear under subsection (4) of that section admits to the court that he has or has had that article or another copy of that article for publication for gain and gives full particulars on oath of the circumstances of his ownership, possession or control of it, the court, if satisfied that the person making the said admission bona fide intends to raise a defence that the said article is not obscene or that its publication is justified as being for the public good under section 4 of the said Act and wishes to have the said issue or issues determined by a jury, shall adjourn the proceedings under section 3 of the said Act and shall direct a charge of having the article (or the said other copy of the article) for publication for gain to be preferred under section 2 of the said Act against the person making the said admission.
This Amendment concerns the principle that where a book is proceeded against and the defence wishes to raise the defence of public good involving the calling of expert evidence as to literary merit, it is desirable, if the defence so wishes, that the case should be heard before a jury and not before any single individual. I wish to be brief and I do not think it is necessary for me to go over the arguments for the principle.
In the debate on Second Reading, seven of the nine who spoke, excluding the two speakers from the Government Front Bench, but not the speakers from the Government back benches, expressed themselves as being strongly in favour of such an Amendment being made to the Bill in Committee. In Committee we endeavoured by every possible means to make such an Amendment. We started with one new Clause and two Amendments trying in different ways to achieve this principle. The first suggested that all forfeiture proceedings should be replaced by criminal proceedings, and the right of trial by jury


would become automatic in all such cases. The second suggested that in forfeiture proceedings, where a defence gave notice that it wished to deploy the special defence, there should be the right of trial by jury. The third and most restrictive of the three said that the defence could have the right to trial by jury where it indicated that it wished to be prosecuted—in other words, where it took upon itself the additional risk and burden of a criminal prosecution. The fourth method, the Amendment on the Order Paper, was put down when the debate was in progress on the other three and it tried to move still closer to the Government point of view to meet any Government objections.
I am bound to say that it will be within the recollection of those who were on the Standing Committee that the Home Secretary did not give the impression, at any rate to some of us, and I believe not only on this side of the House, that he was striving hard to overcome the difficulty. If there were no objection in principle, he raised one of practice. If there were no objection in practice, he raised one of principle, sometimes displaying great ingenuity in advancing arguments, which we had not heard previously, at a very late stage in the debate.
I do not think that his arguments were found very convincing. But the argument which he eventually raised was that it was in some way humiliating to the prosecuting authority, with all the majesty of the State behind it, that it should be allowed to the defence to have the right in any way to choose what sort of proceedings should be followed. I should not have thought that to put upon somebody the right to opt to be prosecuted and to run all the risks, including the risk of prison, was conferring very excessive liberty of choice upon any individual. But the Home Secretary raised a series of objections. Even so he was able to get his way, not on this Amendment but on the third which I have mentioned, by a majority of only one vote in Standing Committee.
We have put down an Amendment which is still more favourable and still closer to the Government's point of view than that which we voted upon in Standing Committee. If there were any

desire by the Government to try to meet the wishes of the House, as expressed by seven of the nine speakers on both sides of the House during Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, because it endeavours, with great ingenuity of drafting by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), to get round the point that there should be an obvious option for the defence. It places certain obligations upon the prosecution where the defence makes certain submissions; the prosecution then directs that criminal proceedings should be taken, and one gets around the difficulty of it being in some curious way an affront to our law, a difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman raised when discussing the other Amendments.
We debated the matter at some length in Standing Committee. I hope that, having discussed it in the meantime, the right hon. Gentleman will be able, in a way in which he was not then able, to pay greater regard to the view of the House as expressed on Second Reading, the view of substantial bodies of opinion outside, and the view expressed in leading articles in journals of great repute and as expressed by the chairman of the Society of Authors and a number of distinguished publishers. I hope that he will accept the Amendment, which is the most moderate possible attempt to meet every Government objection and still give the principle which seven out of nine speakers on Second Reading wanted in the Bill.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I certainly think that this can be described as a Bill which has gained few friends in the course of the stages which it has been through. Indeed, the more we have heard about it, the more suspicious we have become as to the manner in which it will be used. Censorship is always a dangerous instrument. It is the more dangerous in illiberal hands. I rise to ask some very simple questions, which I asked in Committee and to which no answer has yet emerged.
First, do the Government favour in principle the proposition that the decision as to whether a book should or should not be censored is a matter which should be decided by a jury if those concerned with the publication which


the Government wish to censor desire it to be referred to a jury? That is quite a simple question. In principle, ought the question, "Censor or not censor?" be one for a jury or one for the Executive?
Secondly—on a number of occasions they seemed to indicate that they favoured this principle—if that principle is accepted by the Government, have they asked the Parliamentary draftsmen to draft them a suitable Clause to put that principle into operation?
The Government have convinced me that they do not want to leave censorship to a jury. They want themselves to censor. The excuse that it cannot be done is false and transparent. With any will at all, a suitable Clause could be drafted. But I do not believe for one moment that they have ever asked for one.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I said virtually all that I have to say on this point on Second Reading and in Committee, and I have not changed my view. I do not think that I could have changed it, because, with all respect to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, he did not attempt to meet the points which were raised. He merely met the argument by asserting that he wished to stamp out pornography. Whether one agrees with the objective, the argument seems quite irrelevant as to the choice of means whereby anybody who may have published pornography should be brought to book.
It seems to me fundamentally right in our British law that, unless there is good reason to the contrary, a man should be tried by jury. It also seems to me that if we are to have Committee procedure and if the arguments are virtually all one way, then it is not good enough for my right hon. Friend to treat the Committee rather like his Department and to stick to his point of view without giving any argument for it. He is entitled to his point of view but not to stick to it while paying no attention to what is said by anybody in Committee. Unless, therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General suddenly produces out of the hat arguments which we certainly have not heard

up to now, I remain of the view which I have held throughout these proceedings.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I am now waiting to hear new technical reasons why, in this particularly and peculiarly sensitive area of what literature should or should not be published, the matter should not go before a jury. There appear to me to be so many overwhelming reasons why the question of determining whether a book is likely to corrupt or not should be determined by a jury rather than by one man or one woman. If there is one thing to be learned from the whole of the Committee proceedings it is that in a Committee of that character there are an infinite variety of temperaments which react in widely different ways to the subject of pornography.
It is abundantly clear that in the Committee, as in the community, there may be people with the temperament and attitude of Mrs. Grundy and those with the temperament and attitude of Don Juan. Unless we have a subsection of this kind in the Bill it is almost inevitable that the question whether a book is likely to corrupt or not will be determined by a particular group of people, by a magistrate or magistrates who often have been selected quite deliberately not because they enjoy a ribald story or have a Rabelaisian temperament, but precisely because they have a certain rigidity and rectitude which although it may equip them in certain respects to deal with many laws makes them, perhaps, peculiarly unsuitable and unacceptable to deal with the question of what is or is not likely to corrupt.
There must be great differences of view on whether a picture postcard sold on the beach in Barry in South Wales would be likely to corrupt or not between a woman who is a member of a Mothers' Union and a miner who is on his holiday. I am certain that what may be regarded by the one as offensive and disgusting may be regarded by the other as diverting, amusing and witty. There must be room in these matters for wide differences of view founded upon reactions to sex and all that is related to it.
It is, therefore, clearly quite wrong in principle that matters of this kind should be adjudicated upon by anyone


other than a jury. If there are people who come before a court passionately believing that what they are publishing is not likely to corrupt and passionately prepared to take the risk of heavy imprisonment to put the matter to the test, they should be able to say that the matter should be adjudicated by their peers, a group of men and women on a jury. There are those who have a high regard for Eros as a symbol of love and sex, and there are those who regard this as one of the most valuable elements of life. They believe that life would be much impoverished without it. There is every nuance inside and outside the House on the question of what disgusts and on what could be a matter of joy.
We find this today in the public furore on whether women should or should not wear topless dresses. It is clear that there is a section of the community who believe that a topless dress is sartorially desirable. It is equally clear that there are many who regard this as outrageous. This has always been so. I do not doubt that when bustles came into existence there were those who deplored that attention should be directed to a woman's buttocks. There was a time, doubtless, when codpieces were in fashion in the Elizabethan age, when there was a good deal of opinion in the country that it was quite wrong that attention should be drawn to the male organ. It will always be so, and there will be the same variety of attitudes towards publications about which those who support this proposed subsection are particularly concerned.
Surely, therefore, at this last moment we should strive to make certain that we do not have a Bill which, without a subsection such as this, gives an infinite amount of power to prurient busybodies, of whom the Home Secretary is a typical example. He is having a rare old time these days. He is cleaning up Soho from week to week and when he has finished with that he will determine what pictures will be seen, what books will be read, and what postcards my constituents should be able to send from seaside resorts. I do not think that somebody like the Home Secretary or a magistrate of his calibre should have the right to determine what should be or should not be read. I do not think that any of us have that right.
I have been particularly concerned throughout the proceedings on the Bill that when we have matters of this kind to be considered women, as well as men, should be adjudicating on them, as they would be if they were members of a jury deciding whether something is likely to corrupt or not. In these matters women, apart from people like members of the Mothers' Union, have a much more commonsense point of view. They do not believe nonsense of the kind that people who read books become corrupt and promiscuous. They know very well that there are other reasons for that type of behaviour.
I do not want to become involved in the arguments which we heard in Committee. Some believe that literature influences life. Others believe that art influences life. There are those who, I suppose, would have the Crypt of the House of Commons whitewashed. This is why we had the original iconoclasts of early Christendom, and there have always been people who have been frightened that books or pictures would lead to corruption. These are and were people more frightened of themselves than of the pictures they were seeing or the literature they were reading.
I want to make quite certain that what is read or seen in this country will not be determined except by a group of people one of whom may check the other. Each will check the extravagance of the other. If I were on a jury with the Home Secretary somebody might well reach an opinion which would be quite different from the Home Secretary's view of what constitutes pornography and from mine, but the final opinion would be that of a group of people. It is unhealthy, dictatorial and savours of censorship and is quite alien to the best traditions of this country that this Bill should be without a subsection of the kind that we propose.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The House is considering an Amendment which is in the same terms, subject to some minor variations, as those of proposals which we discussed in Committee and of a new subsection which was then rejected on a Division. The material difference is that this Amendment provides that the


intervener must satisfy the court that he bona fide intends to raise the defence of the public good and bona fide intends to raise the defence that the article is not obscene. On those two points, the onus is, and always must be, irrespective of what defence the accused raises, on the prosecution to prove that the article is obscene.
On the second matter, with regard to the accused satisfying the court that he intends bona fide to raise the defence of public good, it is difficult to see how there could be any substantial challenge to it. Thus the position is not very different from what it was before. Therefore, the House, and certainly those Members who were on the Standing Committee, will not be surprised if I raise the same objections. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) does not feel that they have any substance. Nevertheless, I propose to raise the same objections as were raised in Committee.
Parliament deliberately fitted this issue, which is the issue of obscene publication, within the framework of the criminal law, and the ordinary principles of the criminal law should apply to this decision, taken deliberately by Parliament, to fit this issue into the framework of the criminal law. It is fundamental that the prosecution should enjoy the discretion of whether or not to prosecute. There is no instance in any other branch of the criminal law of it being mandatory to prosecute.
The effect of the Amendment would be to make it mandatory on the prosecutor to prosecute and it would have the effect of conferring a discretion on the accused. It seems to me that this is based on the misconception that, Parliament having taken that decision, the object of legal proceedings under the 1959 Act is to determine whether a book or article is obscene. The court does not and cannot so decide; the procedures are not apt for making that decision. I accept that, in practice, when there has been an acquittal, no further proceedings will be brought by the police in respect of that publication. But it is not so in the converse case. Because there has been a conviction in respect of publication to a minor it does not necessarily follow

that there will be another prosecution if there is publication to an adult.
In 1959, Parliament gave these powers to the prosecuting authority—forfeiture and prosecution.

Mr. Paget: When we are considering possession for gain, how is the question of whether a minor or an adult is involved relevant?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect the terms of the Bill, and the circumstances of publication are relevant on the test of obscenity. What may be an obscene publication to a child may not be an obscene publication to an adult—say, a doctor. But Parliament has given these powers to the prosecuting authority, and they were conceived to achieve objects, admittedly, different in degree and kind, but the one punitive and the other preventative. It is wrong to oblige the prosecutor to use one when in his view the circumstances call for the use of the other.
Line 5 of the Amendment uses the words "another copy of that article", and line 12 uses the words
(or the said other copy of the article)".
If the Amendment were enacted, the effect would be that the publisher could demand to be prosecuted for having other copies available for sale. To return to the example which I gave, if medical works were seized in Soho, or in a child's toy shop, or wherever it might be, the publisher, under the Amendment, could demand that he be prosecuted in respect of other copies which he has available elsewhere for sale, for instance, to doctors. But what this shows is that forfeiture cannot be tied to litigation concerning the publication of other copies or some copies in other circumstances or to different classes of person.
Serious practical difficulties would flow from the Amendment. There is a practice, which is I think accepted and understood by all hon. Members, which is followed where large volumes of material are seized. They may be in the form of roneo-ed documents which no hon. Member in this Chamber would not describe as utter, sheer filth. They may be in the form of magazines or paper-back books. This material is often very considerable in volume. The practice may be for the


prosecution to prosecute in respect of, say, half a dozen of the magazines or volumes and then to apply for forfeiture proceedings in respect of the balance.
It would be conceivable, however—and I think that the House must accept this—that if this alternative were presented to the accused whom it was proposed to prosecute in respect of some of the matter which had been seized, he would have little to lose by seeking prosecution in respect of all and something to gain by complicating the process by demanding I hat every volume seized should be the subject of prosecution. As I have said before, a great deal of money is involved in these matters and there is a great deal of sheltering behind the "front" men who might be expected to sustain or suffer the penalties, while many other people merely acquired the money as a result of the activities.
7.45 p.m.
Secondly, the question of photographs was discussed in Committee. If, say, 500 photographs are seized, the photographer, if this choice is presented to him, may wish to take the opportunity of having each photograph tested by trial by jury. There would not be an indictment with 500 counts, but there might be an indictment with one count which would decide whether the man was guilty in respect of that particular photograph. But if this choice is provided, he has the opportunity, if he wishes and if he believes that the photographs are not obscene, of having proceedings instituted in respect of the other 499 photographs by way of prosecution and trial by jury.

The Amendment would cause immense practical difficulties. I urge the House to be practical in this matter and to be forthright in recollecting what the Bill is for and its real purposes. I understand the concern of some people—and I think that they are few in number—about the marginal work which could be described as artistic, a new work. I repeat the assurance which I gave on behalf of the Attorney-General in Standing Committee and which appears in columns 77 and 106 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for Tuesday, 16th June, and Thursday, 18th June, respectively. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central referred to it as only a titbit, but if the

terms of that assurance are studied they must give relief to those who have previously expressed concern.

May I repeat the essence of that assurance? If the prosecuting authority has evidence of a deliberate breach of the law, or of breach of the law and a determination to persist in that breach, it will ordinarily proceed by way of prosecution rather than by forfeiture. In the absence of special circumstances, and if satisfactory evidence of the offence is available, the ordinary policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be to proceed against the publisher by way of prosecution: first, where an article has been seized under a warrant from a retailer or printer and the publisher, before the case is brought before the justices under Section 3 of the 1959 Act, indicates his intention to continue publishing whatever the result of forfeiture proceedings; and, secondly, where inquiries are being made about an article which the prosecution considers to be, prima facie, obscene and the publisher indicates his determination to publish, and to continue to publish, in circumstances which would constitute a criminal offence. That is the essence of the assurance which I gave on those two days.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: There is one other point which the Solicitor-General made in Committee, and I should be grateful if he would repeat it and confirm it to the House, that in these circumstances it would be the policy to prosecute the publisher alone and not together with a co-defendant.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I repeat that assurance and I repeat that what I said in Committee is the formal assurance that has been given. I believe that that really meets the concern of reasonable men as a statement of prosecuting policy. I have not seen any criticism of it in the three weeks since the assurance was given, and I am sure that reasonable men, genuinely concerned, would have been following those proceedings. I cannot believe that it would not be welcomed. It would meet the genuine concern of those people who have expressed concern upon the marginal case, as I have suggested, of the new work or of the work of artistic merit.
In those circumstances, I commend to the House the rejection of the Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: I should make clear, as I did on Second Reading, that on this side of the House we take the view that the Bill is one that should be the subject of a free vote, and so far as my hon. Friends are concerned it will be a matter for a free vote. We think that it is a matter for regret, and have done throughout, that the Government did not make the whole proceedings on the Bill subject to a free vote of the House, in the same way as was done with the Bill which became the 1959 Act, and which this Bill seeks to amend.

The Amendment that we are discussing is yet another attempt that we have made to find a solution to the admittedly difficult problem of how to write into the Bill the right to trial by jury, which so many hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see in the Bill.

We feel that the Amendment meets the only objection which, up to now, have been put forward as a reason for rejecting our request to have a provision of this kind in the Bill. That was the objection that it was thought to be contrary to the general principles of our criminal law to give, in effect, the right to a citizen to demand of the State that the State should prosecute him, when the discretion whether or not to prosecute is one which rests with the authorities acting for the State, either the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

We sought to meet that by providing in this Amendment that, in fact, the instruction to prosecute would come from the court itself, where forfeiture proceedings were commenced, if the defendant could satisfy the court that he genuinely and bona fide wanted to raise this defence, and if he also were prepared, on oath, to admit to the facts and circumstances which would show his possession of the article. In that case the prosecution would be in no difficulty about the basic question of proof so that they could bring criminal proceedings. In those circumstances, the magistrate would then adjourn the forfeiture proceedings and direct a charge to be preferred under the criminal law so that the man would have the right to have the issue determined by a jury.

The Solicitor-General has now put forward new arguments against the Amendment.

I would seek, very briefly, to answer them. First, he says that Parliament deliberately fitted this issue—I am not quite sure what he meant by "this issue"—within the framework of the criminal law. I did not quite follow that. The forfeiture procedure is not within the criminal law. It is an anomaly, it is something quite exceptional, and there is no parallel for it. A man who has a summons under the forfeiture procedure is not charged with any offence or any crime at all and if the forfeiture order is made against him he has not any criminal conviction. This is not the criminal law. It is a form of civil administrative procedure which enables the authorities to destroy bulk stocks of pornographic literature without any criminal proceedings being brought at all.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that in 1959 Parliament gave these powers for forfeiture and prosecution to the authorities. We did not do that in 1959. Both those procedures existed before. What we did was to change both of them. We changed the forfeiture proceedings by making it no longer necessary for the police to prove an actual sale so as to get a forfeiture order, and we changed the prosecution proceedings by making a new statutory definition—or not a new definition but a statutory definition—of obscenity and by giving a new defence, namely, the defence of literary and analogous merit under Section 4.

So it is not as though something new was done in the creation of these procedures under the 1959 Act. It was modification of the existing procedures. It is quite true that there is no other branch of the law where there is anything analogous to the right to demand to be prosecuted on the part of a person brought before the court. Equally, there is no analogy for the forfeiture procedure. There is no other comparable way in which a person can be brought before the court in order to have an issue of this kind raised and not be subject to the criminal law.

Because of that there arises this whole problem of how to secure for him the right to trial by jury, because there is this very anomalous forfeiture procedure where he has not got the right. Very cogent arguments were put forward as


to why it was not practicable to use the right to trial by jury within the forfeiture procedure. That is why we have sought to devise a solution which would ensure, in the circumstances that I have described, that the defendant to the forfeiture proceedings could say, "No, rather than forfeiture proceedings I would rather be prosecuted, with all the risks and perils that that entails, in order to have this issue of obscenity or non-obscenity, this issue of literary merit or non-literary merit decided by a jury and not by a magistrate".

The other arguments put forward by the Solicitor-General suggested that there would be administrative difficulties in the procedure that we propose. He first of all seized on the phrase "or another copy" in the Amendment. I am not sure that I follow fully his argument, but I understand that as an example he referred to a case that occurred in Liverpool, where a pornographer displayed a medical textbook in the window of his shop, opened at the page illustrating the female genital organs—a well-known case. If forfeiture proceedings were taken in such a case and if our Amendment were passed, the publisher of that medical textbook could say that he demanded to be prosecuted in respect of other copies of the book which he sold to doctors and then show that it was of scientific merit and, therefore, should not be forfeited.

I do not know whether the Solicitor-General realises that that defence now exists. It would be open in the forfeiture proceedings for the pornographic bookseller to point out under Section 4 that publication of that work was of scientific merit. We deliberately left out the definite article "the" before the word "publication" in Section 4—I remember, because I moved the Amendment—to make it clear that that defence would be open not only in the circumstances of the particular sale by the defendant who was before the court, but to show that publication of the book to the public in general could be justified as being for the public good. I do not, therefore, see that there is any force in that argument. If, however, there is difficulty about it, it is a minor matter which could easily be dealt with by Amendment of the subsection in another place if the House sees fit to pass it.

8.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General raised again what I suggest is the bogy of saying that if this procedure was authorised, it could be seized upon and used by pornographers to obstruct the work of the courts and to bring to nought the attempts in the Bill to give greater powers of dealing with bulk pornography. What is suggested is that where forfeiture proceedings were being taken and, say, 500 different titles were seized from a pornographic bookshop or 500 different photographs from a pornographic photographer, the defendant would be able to demand that he should be tried by a jury for every one of those titles or photographs. It is precisely to meet that situation that we have put in the Amendment the requirement that that person must satisfy the magistrate that he bona fide intends to raise that defence.

In the situation which the Solicitor-General has posed, is it to be imagined that in the case of a pornographic bookseller of the type with whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was attempting to deal under the Bill—the Soho bookshop—if 500 trashy publications or 500 obviously pornographic photographs were brought before the court, the magistrate, on the say-so of the defendant, would accept at once that he bona fide wanted to raise this defence under Section 4? I cannot imagine it. There is enough common sense among magistrates not to allow the administration of the law to be frustrated in that way. That is the safeguard which we have included. It is perfectly adequate to meet the point.

I cannot imagine that there is any real difference between the two sides of the House as to object. There cannot be any objection by the Government to the object which our Amendment tries to achieve. I say that with confidence, because the Solicitor-General has kindly repeated the assurance which he gave in Committee about not only the way in which the Government propose to administer the Bill, but the way they construe it.

The Solicitor-General: I should like to make clear, as the hon. and learned Member will appreciate, that it is not the Government who give this assurance. It is given on behalf of the Attorney-General with his duties in respect of prosecution.

Mr. MacDermot: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for correcting me. It is, of course, an assurance given not by the Government, but by the Attorney-General. We are appreciative of the co-operation which we have had from the Law Officers in this matter. I concede that they genuinely wish to help us to achieve our object.
The assurance which has been given us certainly carries the matter a considerable way, but it cannot of necessity go all the way, because the power to prosecute in this matter does not rest alone with the public authorities. Any private individual can prosecute. We know that private individuals do not do so, but with the growing enthusiasm which there seems to be on the subject there is no reason why private individuals or societies should not take it upon themselves to initiate prosecutions. If they did, there would be no kind of safeguard that the policy which was being enunciated on behalf of the Attorney-General would be followed, in particular the assurance which we have just received that the publisher of such a work would be prosecuted alone and not have to seek to defend the literary merits of his work against the background of a pornographic bookseller.
For these reasons, I know that many of my hon. Friends feel strongly that this is a matter which should be written into the Bill. We do not say that the Amendment cannot be improved—that is something which could be done in another place—but I hope that the House will support us in asking that the Amendment be passed.

Mr. Michael Foot: It is clear that the Government are adamant in rejecting the proposition that this side of the House and others have put forward on this matter. I certainly will not delay the House for more than a minute or so. It is no good at this stage trying to repeat the arguments, even though the Solicitor-General has been as good as his word and repeated the arguments which he put to us before.
I cannot, however, agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) that the Government agree with us on the principle about this matter. The Government have not made the slightest effort to accommodate the House on this matter. That is proved by the persistent

failure of the Home Secretary and of the Solicitor-General to answer the questions put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
My hon. and learned Friend asked the Government, first, whether they agreed with the principle which we are enunciating and, then, whether they had asked the Government draftsman to draft an Amendment which would incorporate the principle. My hon. and learned Friend and others put that question to the Government time and again in Committee. It has been put here again this evening. Not the slightest effort has been made to answer it. All we have been told is that we should trust the undertaking given, not on behalf of the Government, but on behalf of the Attorney-General.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at his own undertaking, he will see that it is hedged around with many qualifications. Even so, one of the further reasons why it is impossible for us to accept that assurance as a substitute for our Amendment is that the atmosphere in which prosecutions may be taken against the so-called marginal cases to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred will be altered by the Bill, because it condones the procedure that was operated in the "Fanny Hill" case. That means that the whole attitude of publishers in what they publish will be tightened up.
The Government have given not the slightest indication throughout the whole of our discussions, either in the speeches of the Solicitor-General or, less still, in those of the Home Secretary, that they care a fig for this. They are not worried about it. They have not made the slightest effort to try to devise a legal procedure to ensure that reputable publishers publishing material which today may be condemned but which tomorrow will be acclaimed should be protected. The Government have not made the slightest effort to do it. Therefore, we should not pay them compliments.
I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North is pressing the matter to a Division. What the Government are saying to the country, to the publishing world, authors and anyone concerned with literature is that after the House of Commons has examined the whole question in the


utmost detail, it is impossible for them to devise any procedure whereby the protection of trial by jury shall be provided for reputable authors and publishers. I hope, therefore, that we will not have any nonsense about the Government being in favour of liberty and freedom, wishing to protect the right to print or anything of that sort.
When any practical question comes before the House, the whole influence of the Government, and in particular of the Home Secretary, is thrown against freedom. The Government have gone through the charade of pretending that they want to listen to what both sides of the House want to say, but they have not made the slightest effort to make any valuable concession to us in this matter.
I do not believe that the Attorney-General's assurance is worth very much in view of the general background of the BUI. Therefore, instead of being fobbed off with a pretence that the Government have assisted us, hon. Members should recognise that the Government, who set out to introduce the Bill, never had any intention at the beginning of caring about literary freedom and have shown throughout the whole proceedings that they have not in any way shifted on that point.

Mrs. Eveline Hill: We have listened to some earnest pleas today on this subject, as we did in Standing Committee, but I believe that the general public will be very much in agreement with the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General over this matter.
I have had numerous letters on the subject from parents, teachers and social workers, all begging that the Home Secretary should stand firm and pursue the Bill as it is written, because they believe that the mass of pornographic literature which is flooding the market, and which can so easily be acquired by young people, is of no use whatever to this country.
It was suggested by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) that women magistrates might take a broader view. As a woman magistrate, I can assure him that women will study the matter very carefully and will take a very sane and sensible view about some of the stuff that is published. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will stand firm on the matter.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 124.

Division No. 129.]
AYES
[8.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce


Alldritt, W. H.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Milne, Edward


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Mitchison, G. R.


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Harper, Joseph
Oliver, G. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hart, Mrs. Judith
O'Malley, B. K.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parker, John


Bence, Cyril
Holt, Arthur
Pentland, Norman


Berkeley, Humphry
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Popplewell, Ernest


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, James H.
Short, Edward


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunter, A. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. Horace
Swingler, Stephen


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lipton, Marcus
Wainwright, Edwin


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Watkins, Tudor


Doig, Peter
Lubbock, Eric
Whitlock, William


Driberg, Tom
McCarm, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
MacDermot, Niall
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McInnes, James
Winterbottom, R. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Manuel, Archie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marsh, Richard
Mr. Michael Foot and




Mr. Roy Jenkins.




NOES


Allason, James
Barlow, Sir John
Bevins, Rt. Hon, Reginald


Anderson, D. C.
Batsford, Brian
Bishop, Sir Patrick


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Black, Sir Cyril




Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robson Brown, Sir William


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roots, William


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
lrvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Jennings, J. C.
Sharples, Richard


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shaw, M.


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Jones, Arthur (Northerns, S.)
Shepherd, William


Chataway, Christopher
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)


Cooke, Robert
Lagden, Godfrey
Stainton, Keith


Coulson, Michael
Lambton, Viscount
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Storey, Sir Samuel


Crawley, Aldan
Lilley, F. J. P.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Currie, G. B. H.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Dance, James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


d'Avidor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
MacArthur, lan
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maitland, Sir John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Doughty, Charles
Marten, Neil
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Farr, John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)
Turner, Colin


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Foster, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gower, Raymond
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Walker, Peter


Green, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Partridge, E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wills, Sir Cerald (Bridgwater)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pitman, Sir James
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Hendry, Forbes
Pitt, Dame Edith
Woodnutt, Mark


Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton
Woollam, John


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Worsley, Marcus


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis



Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holland, Philip
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Mr. McLaren and


Hornsby-Smith, Rt, Hon. Dame P.
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, at the end to insert:
(3) A person who has or has had an obscene article for publication for gain shall not be proceeded against for an offence at common law relating to that article where it is the essence of the offence that the matter is obscene:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to proceedings for conspiracy to commit an offence against section 2 of the said Act.
This Amendment deals with a question originally raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on Second Reading but not dealt with in Committee. When the statutory offence of publishing an obscene article was created by the 1959 Act, the question arose of whether or not we should abolish the previous common law offence. It was decided not to do so, with the result that those forms of obscenity which were not covered by the definition Section of the 1959 Act could still be dealt with at common law.
But it was, as I recall, clearly our intention that anything which could be dealt with under the 1959 Act should be dealt with under it so as to make the new Section 4 defence available. For that reason it was provided by Section 2(4) as follows:

A person publishing an article shall not be proceeded against for an offence at common law consisting of the publication of any matter contained or embodied in the article where it is of the essence of the offence that the matter is obscene.
This was a provision which sought to give effect to the intention I have referred to. But, after the Act was passed, a case came before the courts when a defendant was charged with the common law offence of conspiracy to commit an offence against Section 2 of the 1959 Act—with conspiring to publish an obscene article.
It was said on behalf of the defendant that the charge should not lie because it contravened the provision of the 1959 Act that I have quoted. The court rejected the argument because, quite rightly, it said that, in a conspiracy to publish, publication of the matter is not of the essence of the offence because the common law offence of conspiracy consists, in essence, of agreement to do the unlawful and it matters not whether the unlawful act is every carried out or completed. Therefore, completion is not of the essence of the offence.
Some people were disturbed by this decision. I would not quarrel with it.


however. It is sometimes necessary to promote a charge for conspiracy in order to bring evildoers to justice. It does raise, however, the subsidiary question—which we did discuss in Committee—as to whether Section 4 defence and rights are available in a case of that kind where the charge is one of conspiracy.
There are, however, a number of other ancient common law offences under which a person could be charged instead of being charged under the 1959 Act. One example was referred to on Second Reading—the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals. After the "Ladies Directory" case, an assurance was given by the Lord Chancellor, repeated by the Attorney-General and then repeated again on Second Reading of the Act by the Solicitor-General, that no person would be prosecuted for that offence so as to circumvent his right to raise a defence under Section 4 of the Act. But, of course, that assurance—and I repeat the comment I made on the last Amendment—does not and cannot bind a private prosecutor, and the fact remains that, in the "Ladies Directory" case itself, a person was charged with that offence when the subject matter of the prosecution was of obscene publication within the 1959 Act. Indeed, he was also charged with an offence under the 1959 Act.
On this occasion I tender an apology to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet. In a hasty intervention in his speech on Second Reading, I suggested that he was wrong on this point. I accepted his invitation to look up the case and I found that he was plainly right and I was wrong.
I understand that there are other offences at common law which could be preferred, but I do not want to weary the House by going into them now. I was assured by a barrister friend whose responsibility it is to advise on these prosecutions that he had himself in one instance not long ago advised the Director of Public Prosecutions that such a charge could be brought but should not be brought under the 1959 Act for an ancient common law offence. I was glad to hear that the Director also took the view that it was undesirable to do that as it might be thought to be trying

to obviate the defence under the 1959 Act.
That, I suggest, showed a healthy and proper attitude on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions but it reinforces my point that these possibilities are open and would be open to private prosecutors. Our Amendment is designed to ensure that, where a person has or has had an obscene article in his possession for gain, then he must be prosecuted for the new offence or for conspiracy to commit an offence against Section 2—that would in effect be conspiracy to publish an obscene article—but that he could not be prosecuted for any other common law offence.
I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment, which does not run contrary to any declared Government policy that I know of or to the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It merely would ensure that the same standards as are being applied by the authorities would also have to be applied by any private prosecutor.

8.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The object of the Amendment is to make it impossible to charge an agreement to publish an obscene article as an offence against common law, and in particular as a conspiracy to corrupt public morals. There are minor drafting defects in the Amendment in that it applies only to persons who have or have had articles for publication for gain. It would not cover conspirators who had never had articles in their possession or control.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) has raised a position which was brought to the fore by the decision in the case of Shaw v. the Director of Public Prosecutions, a case decided in the House of Lords. It is quite clear from that decision, which admittedly takes some study, that an agreement to publish an obscene article cannot be charged as a conspiracy to corrupt public morals. I remind the House of the facts in a little more detail.
The accused in that case published an illustrated booklet which set out the names and addresses and telephone numbers of certain prostitutes and of some of their particular practices. The


advertisements in the booklet were paid for by the prostitutes and the accused derived a profit from the publication which he was making. It was his avowed intention and purpose to assist prostitutes to ply their trade which, following the Street Offences Act, 1959, had ceased to be plied on the streets.
In his judgment, Lord Simonds said that there was in the court a residual power with respect to common law offences where no Statute had yet intervened. In fact, Statute has intervened in respect of the publication of an obscene article, and it has intervened by the Obscene Publications Act, 1959. Shaw's offence was to publish a booklet whose avowed purpose was to provide the names and addresses and practices of prostitutes to whom men could then resort. That is very different from the publication of an obscene book, because the intention or purpose in the first of those offences is to incite persons to resort to prostitutes.
The form of the incitement was a publication which provided detailed information. The incitement took the form of an obscene publication, and Shaw was convicted of that under the Obscene Publications Act, but the corruption of public morals was the incitement to resort to prostitutes and indictable as such, quite irrespective of the form of the incitement. The examples which were given by the learned law Lords of conspiracies to corrupt public morals were all cases of inciting persons to do something which was not unlawful but which might be said to be immoral, such as inciting persons to commit acts of lesbianism or, before 1907, to commit incestuous acts, or inciting persons, if the Wolfenden proposals were enacted into law, to commit homosexual acts.
But where there is not an incitment but merely an agreement to publish an obscene publication, an obscene libel which would be covered by the 1959 Act, Statute would have intervened, as Lord Simonds said, and the Statute law in that case is the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, carrying with it the statutory defences which would apply. This is the clear result of a proper examination of the Shaw case.
It was that which led the former Attorney-General, now the Lord Chancellor,

and the present Attorney-General and, I would forecast, any successor, to give the assurance that no proceedings would be brought for a common law offence so as to attempt to evade the statutory defence of public good which is set out in the 1959 Act. It is based on an understanding of the law and not, as it were, on a statement of prosecuting policy.
Likewise, there would be no fear of an attempt by a private prosecutor. If he were to attempt any such prosecution, he too, would fail. Moreover, in practice there are or appear to be no private prosecutions. They are always brought by or on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
In these circumstances, on a true understanding of the law there is no need for the Amendment and I suggest that the House rejects it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end to insert:
(4) Where a person who has or has had an obscene article for publication for gain is proceeded against for an offence, whether at common law or under any statute, relating to that article, and the question whether that article is obscene is a relevant issue in those proceedings, that person shall not be convicted of that offence if he proves that publication of the article in question is justified as being for the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other objects of general concern, and it is hereby declared that the opinion of experts as to the literary, artistic, scientific or other merits of the article may be admitted in any such proceedings either to establish or negative the said ground.
The object of the Amendment is to extend the Section 4 defence of public good under the 1959 Act to offences other than those charged under that Act where it is a necessary part of the prosecution case to show that the article in question is obscene. As the Amendment is drafted it applies only to cases where a defendant has or has had an obscene article for publication for gain. I should have been happy to omit those words, but I suspected that if I did you would be unable, under the rules of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call the Amendment. That is why the words find themselves there. There are some points, which I hope the House will find interesting, which should be considered under the Amendment.
The first class of case which could be affected by the Amendment is that of conspiracy to commit an offence against Section 2 of the 1959 Act. This raises a point that I touched on a moment ago, and which we discussed in Committee, when the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General kindly said that he would consider it further. It is the question whether, in particular, Section 4(2) of the 1959 Act applies where proceedings are taken for a conspiracy to commit an offence against Section 2.
What that means in layman's language is that it was provided under the 1959 Act that not only was there this defence of public good, but where a person raised the defence it was declared that he was entitled to call experts as to the literary, artistic, scientific or other merits of an article, and to establish that defence, and, further, that the prosecution had the right to call similar experts in rebuttal to negative the defence. Many of us thought at the time—and it has been widely felt by the general public—that this was an important feature of the 1959 Act.
As that Act is worded, it is declared that evidence can be called in any proceedings
under this Act either to establish or to negative the said ground.
I have very real doubts whether, if proceedings were brought for a conspiracy to commit an offence under the 1959 Act and the defendant sought to call expert evidence, he would not be met by the decision of the courts that he was not entitled to the protection of this subsection because the proceedings were being brought not under the Act but at common law for conspiracy. That is the point that I asked the Solicitor-General to be good enough to consider. That point would be covered if the Amendment were accepted.
The second class of case which could be affected is that where proceedings are brought under Section 11 of the Post Office Act, 1953. It is curious how much that Section has been ignored in all the consideration and discussion of this subject that has gone on. It was overlooked by the Select Committee. It was touched on in the written memorandum put in by the Customs authorities to the Select Committee, but there was no memorandum from the Postmaster-General; no evidence was given on behalf of the

Postmaster-General, no witnesses spoke to this Section, and no witnesses were asked any questions about it.
The Section provides that it is an offence to send through the post an indecent or obscene article. There is no definition either of indecency or obscenity. I believe that there is some judicial authority to indicate that the two words are probably synonymous. As they are not defined, it means that the test of obscenity laid down under the 1959 Act in relation to obscene publications does not apply in respect of Section 11 of the Post Office Act. It is open to the courts to give a much wider and different construction to the word.
Secondly, and perhaps much more important, the defence of literary merit does not apply, or the defence of public good does not apply at all to proceedings under the Post Office Act. Consequently, it may be that a person who is prosecuted under the 1959 Act for publishing an obscene article, and who successfully raises a defence either that the article in question was not obscene or that its publication could be justified as being for the public good, might find himself prosecuted under the Post Office Act for sending the identically same article through the post. He certainly would not be able to raise the Section 4 defence and he might find, with the different test of obscenity applied, that he would have committed an offence against Section 11.
This appears to me an unsatisfactory state of affairs and one which has arisen, as so often these things do, purely by oversight and neglect. There was no conscious decision on the part of anyone. I have refreshed my memory by reading through all our debates on the 1959 Act and I cannot see that anybody discussed or touched on this question. I should be grateful to hear from the Government what are their views on this point.
Thirdly, the Amendment could apply in respect of any of the other common law offences to which I referred during the discussion on the last Amendment. It could be brought by a private prosecutor in relation to an allegedly obscene article. I must admit at once that there may be technical objections to the form of this Amendment. I have been in some difficulty in framing an Amendment


which would be within the rules of order and enable us to raise the point. If the Government think that there is substance in these points, no doubt they will find ways in another place to put down Amendments to meet it.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) is correct, as far as my researches go, and I agree with him that the Post Office witnesses did not give any evidence before the Select Committee, though the matter was touched on, I am told, by the Customs witnesses in the evidence which they gave. The Post Office Act of 1953, the consolidating Measure, applies, as the House will recollect, to many places to which the 1959 Act did not apply. The Post Office Act was the prior Act and applies to Scotland and to Northern Ireland, to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
The 1959 Obscene Publications Act was described as the child of this Select Committee. It applied a new definition of obscenity and provided a special defence. That was applied only to the law of England and Wales. The principal Act did not extend, or seek to extend, to anything beyond the law of England and Wales. This Bill, which is intended to strengthen the 1959 Act, obviously would not be appropriate to extend a special defence to the Post Office offence which, in the 1959 Act, Parliament left as it was, extending over Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands. The 1959 Act did not do it and, of course, it would not be right to do it by this Measure.
8.45 p.m.
The main question raised by this Amendment—which, the hon. and learned Member frankly said, reveals technical weaknesses with which I am not trying to deal—is: is the special defence which is provided available to a charge of conspiracy under Section 2 of the 1959 Act? My reply is that it is. We had some discussion about this in Committee. I think that it was generally agreed that when one looked to other statutes where, in the criminal law, special defences are provided if a conspiracy was charged, in those circumstances the special defence would be available and there would not be a necessity to write into those Measures,

as there is not to write into this Bill, the provision that the defence is available.
Hon. and learned Gentlemen went further than that and asked me to consider in particular Section 4(2), which was the declaratory Section in relation to the evidence of experts. This was something I expressed a view on at the time, but I undertook to the Committee to consider it carefully in view of all that has been said. Section 4(2) is clearly from its wording declaratory because it starts with the words, "It is hereby declared." It is, therefore, in that form unnecessary. It was not a necessary adjunct to Section 4(1) which is the provision of the special defence.
If it is a defence to prove that the publication of an article is justified for the public good because, for instance, it is in the interests of science, it must as a matter of law be open to any accused person to call evidence in support of that defence. I think science and artistic merit are matters where evidence of experts has always been admissible. There were many famous cases in which, hon. and learned Gentlemen will recollect, long before this legislation evidence of such matters was given.
The advice given by my predecessor to the House and to the Committee in 1959 was very emphatic, that this was only declaratory and set out only to declare that this evidence should be and could be heard. The advice he then gave to the House was that it was unnecessary. He argued, and I repeat the argument, that the expert evidence is available when the defence is pleaded to an offence under the Act. A fortiori, it must be available when there is a charge of conspiracy. I suggest that it would be obvious that no court would refuse evidence on a conspiracy charge which it would admit on a substantive charge because of the words in the Act.
I have given close examination to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but the advice I give the House is that as these words are clearly only declaratory it is not necessary to write them into the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North frankly admitted that there are defects


in the Amendment, but it is on the substance of the advice I give to the House that I recommend that this is unnecessary and need not be written into the Bill.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: As I understand it, the general point made by the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General is that these words were unnecessary in the 1959 Act and would be equally, but no more, unnecessary in this Measure. In the negotiations and discussions leading up to the Act of 1959, the insertion of those words was regarded by the sponsors of the Measure, and by the majority of the Select Committee, to be of importance. The Government spokesmen of the day both took the view that the words were unnecessary; we took the view that if they were unnecessary they could do no harm but that, as expert evidence had been rejected on a number of occasions in the past, it was safer to have the matter written into the Bill. I must say that in view of the experience one has had in various ways since then, I am glad that it was written into the Bill, and not left merely to stand upon assurances.
It was a point to which great attention was paid. It was one of the two outstanding points in the negotiations between the sponsors of the Bill, and the then Attorney-General, who is now the Lord Chancellor. Great importance was attached to it by the sponsors of the Bill, and Parliament eventually accepted it. We have heard a great deal from the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General on other occasions mat Parliament in its wisdom wrote in or did not write this into the Act of 1959. I always find that mat cloaks the absence of any real argument on any number of occasions from the Government Front Bench, but if it is valid when it suits the Government, it must also be valid when it does not suit the Government.
Parliament thought it right to put this declaration into the Act of 1959. Parliament was not satisfied with that Measure, whatever the Law Officers of the day may have said. That being so, it is highly undesirable to create an anomalous situation in which it is in one provision but in the other provision it is left to stand on the assumption that if a defence of public good exists, expert evidence must be admissible—

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I was arguing that just as there is this defence to the substantive charge then, in my submission, there would certainly be this defence where there is a charge of conspiracy, and that, therefore, it is unnecessary to have either subsections (1) or (2) of Section 4 written into this Bill.

Mr. Jenkins: But as I understand it, because the then Solicitor-General said that it was unnecessary to have it in the Act of 1959—

The Solicitor-General: It was a view expressed then, and it is only a declaratory subsection. The whole of Section 4 is really contained, as I suggested to the Committee, in subsection (1), and subsection (2) is the declaratory part. In Committee, I undertook to look at this again, because I think that it was agreed that where there was conspiracy there would necessarily be that defence provided, when there would then be available this means of establishing such defence. I suggest that it is unnecessary to write this into the Bill, because where there is that right to set up that defence there must be the means of setting it up.

Mr. Jenkins: That is exactly the argument that was put then to the Committee, and later to the House, by the then Solicitor-General and the then Attorney-General in 1959 and the House was not satisfied with it. Parliament thought it necessary in 1959 to write in the declaration, and I suggest that Parliament would be equally wise to do so today.
The right hon. and learned Solicitor-General is not arguing that the right to call this evidence stems from the declaration put into the Act of 1959. He is arguing that the right to call this evidence necessarily stems from the right to the defence of the public good. In 1959 the view was not taken by the sponsors of the Bill or by the majority of the House that that was sufficient. It was a great point of argument, and I was extremely glad that we had stuck to our position.
What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now doing is to go back to the position taken up by his predecessors, but not accepted by the House


in 1959. As I say, as he has constantly put before us the point that Parliament in its wisdom said this in 1959, he should accept the point now that it would be far safer and more satisfactory to make the declaration here, just as it was thought necessary to make it in 1959.

Mr. Paget: The Solicitor-General's argument falls into three parts. His first argument is that, where there is a statutory defence to a crime created by Statute, that statutory defence is incorporated into the charge, if it is brought under conspiracy. With that part of his argument I agree. To take bigamy as an example, the Statute has made the offence of bigamy not merely to marry a second time during the lifetime of the first wife or husband, as the case may be, but to marry in the lifetime of the previous spouse within seven years of last knowing him or her to be alive.
I think that that is incorporated and becomes part of the offence; so that a conspiracy, to be established, would have to be a conspiracy to do that which is forbidden by the Statute, and what is forbidden by the Statute is the act without the circumstances which constitute a defence. Therefore, as to that I find myself in agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's position on evidence is quite different. The position with regard to evidence is that the Statute specifically says:
In … proceedings under this Section".
What the Solicitor-General is saying is not that the 1959 Act would make expert evidence available in charges at common law under conspiracy. What he is saying is that the 1959 Act was wrong, that the declaratory Section in it was quite unnecessary, and that this expert evidence would be available anyhow. In a word, in so far as the evidence provision applies as to proceedings at common law, the Solicitor-General's case is based, and is based solely, upon the proposition that the House was wrong in 1959 when it considered it necessary to make this declaration.
I do not think that the House was wrong to make this declaration in 1959. A number of courts had rejected expert

evidence upon this very issue. They may have been right. They may have been wrong. The function of the House is not to promote litigation. When a matter is in doubt, our job is to resolve that doubt, if we can. That doubt was resolved in the cases covered by the 1959 Act. The 1959 Act, in so far as it applies to evidence, does not resolve the doubt in conspiracy cases. Therefore, for precisely the same reason as this declaration Section was put in the 1959 Act for offences under that Act, we should now apply it to cases based in conspiracy to commit an offence against that Act.
The third point deals with the Post Office Act case, in which the definition is "obscene" or "indecent", without any of the limitations written into the 1959 Act. To return to my analogy with bigamy, under the Post Office Act his offence is marrying a second wife during the first wife's lifetime. The offence under the 1959 Act, by analogy, is marrying during the first spouse's life, having known her to be alive during the previous seven years. In other words, the offence under the Post Office Act is a different offence. Surely that is wrong? We do not wish to use the Post Office Act to get round the 1959 Act and avoid the 1959 Act defences.
9.0 p.m.
From my understanding of the argument of the Solicitor-General, he did not really question that. His sole argument, as I understood it, was that the Post Office Act applied to Northern Ireland and Scotland, which the 1959 Act did not, and that we did not want, from the point of view of that Act, to change the law of Northern Ireland and Scotland when we had refrained from doing so in the 1959 Act.
That seems a reasonable argument and so long as the Solicitor-General tells us that he will have a look at this matter and in another place introduce the necessary Amendment to limit it to this country and to exclude Northern Ireland and Scotland, that would be acceptable to me. After all, we have changed the law of this country as to indecency and obscenity without altering that of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We do not really want to create a situation in which the publisher who has


established his right to publish, say, "Lady Chatterley", should be prosecuted for sending that which he has established his right to publish through the post. That is the position today and surely it is one which should be corrected. I entirely accept the limitation in regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland, but can the Solicitor-General assure us that consideration of this matter as it applies to England will be considered in the way I have described?

Mr. MacDermot: The Solicitor-General is right in telling the House that his predecessor of the day gave the same advice to hon. Members as he has given today, namely, that the Amendment was unnecessary because, on the view he took of the law, the right to call expert evidence existed. There is only one difference between the attitude of the Solicitor-General today and that of his predecessor in 1959; that his predecessor graciously gave way and agreed to the Amendment being written into the Measure. On his construction of the law, the Amendment could not possibly do any harm. If his construction of the law were wrong and our fears were justified, then it could do good and could achieve the object which we all desired and which his predecessor thought had already been secured by the then law.
I think that we were wise to insist and that his predecessor was wise to give way in 1959. I have grave doubts whether, in the "Lady Chatterley" case, all the expert witnesses who gave evidence for the defence would have been allowed to give evidence if we had not written Section 4(2) into the 1959 Act.
As I have said, I have doubts—I put it no higher than that—whether this right to call expert evidence would be equally secure in a case where the charge was one of conspiracy. Surely there can be no harm in an Amendment being put into the Bill to remove any such doubt. I agree that my Amendment is not a very convenient form of achieving that object and that if we all agree about the object then it is something which the Government can do at a later stage in another place.
I once again urge the Government to look further at this matter and to consider whether they cannot, with equally good grace, yield on this point, as their

predecessors did in 1959. If they do not do so, we are left in the state of affairs that we only hope and pray that they are right in predicting what the courts will do and that we are wrong. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, when doubts of this kind exist and we have an opportunity to remove them, surely it is our duty to remove those doubts and not to make possible what proves to be very expensive litigation on this matter.
One of the cases which has given rise to the Bill, the Straker case, went to the House of Lords, the highest tribunal in the land, and we know what costs are involved in proceedings of that kind. Surely we should do all we can to obviate any risk of quite unnecessary costs of that kind being incurred in asking the courts to decide a point which we can simply decide for ourselves.

Mr. Abse: The Solicitor-General takes his economy of style to great lengths when he shows himself so concerned that there should not be a dot or comma in the Bill which can be regarded in any way as superfluous. When we have here an attempt to put it beyond the reach of any ambiguity at all whether it is possible in the circumstances which have been delineated that evidence should be given on the literary merit of published works, and when quite clearly no harm can be done, except possibly an offence to drafting, I wonder why the Amendment is not accepted.
The eyes of the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General are so rivetted upon the Bill that they are forgetting that our eyes are rivetted upon works of genuine literary merit which could be in some danger. We are, naturally, concerned that if there is some ambiguity then we should have an Amendment of this kind to make it clear that those who are civilised are right in believing that sophisticated books can be published in this country without fearing that the publishers will be pursued by a lot of puritanical Philistines.
This type of subsection is a test of attitude. It is a test whether we believe in having a free, civilised, cultured community or whether, because of the concern of hon. Members who are so anxious about pursuing pornography, we shall jeopardise the position of reputable publishers and genuine authors.
I hope that, if necessary, my hon. Friends will take the Amendment to a Division. We should make it clear outside the House that there is a body of opinion in the House which is not prepared to capitulate to Philistina and that when we have the heresy hunts which have taken place, and the pursuits of pornography in every nook and corner of the land, we are not prepared to put in jeopardy works of genuine literary merit. This is why we want this matter

to be reconsidered. If there is no reconsideration and we have this blunt uncooperative attitude, we can only come to the conclusion that it is because of a complete lack of concern and disinterest in genuine literary productions in this country.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 117.

Division No. 130.]
AYES
[9.12 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fits)
Parker, John


Alldritt, W. H.
Harper, Joseph
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Rankin, John


Bence, Cyril
Hayman, F. H.
Short, Edward


Boardman, H.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Sorensen, R. W.


Brockway, A. Fanner
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cliffe, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McCann, J.
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacDermet, Niall
Watkins, Tudor


Doig, Peter
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Whitlock, William


Driberg, Tom
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Millan, Bruce



Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Hew (Caerphilly)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Michael Foot and


Fernyhough, E.
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Roy Jenkins.




NOES


Allason, James
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Anderson, D. C.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pounder, Rafton


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Henderson, Sir John (Catheart)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Barlow, Sir John
Hendry, Forbes
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Batsford, Brian
Hiley, Joseph
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Hirst, Geoffrey
Bees-Davies, W. R. (lsle of Thanet)


Black, Sir Cyril
Holland, Philip
Roots, William


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Holt, Arthur
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Sharples, Richard


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Shaw, M.


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shepherd, William


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)


Chataway, Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northerns, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Coulson, Michael
Kirk, Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lagden, Godfrey
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crawley, Aidan
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lilley, F. J. P.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Danes, James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lubbock, Eric
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Doughty, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Turner, Colin


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McLaren, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Farr, John
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Finlay, Graeme
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walker, Peter


Fisher, Nigel
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Gower, Raymond
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Woollam, John


Green, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Worsley, Marcus


Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Partridge, E.



Gurden, Harold
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. Peel and Mr. Pym.

9.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When a very good Bill reaches its Third Reading stage unchanged, but for one or two drafting Amendments, from the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading some weeks ago, there is very little for the Government spokesman to add in moving the Third Reading.
We have spent 11 hours in Committee and on Report on the Bill, but practically none of the matters to which we devoted all that time is within the scope of the Third Reading debate, because of the rule that on Third Reading we can debate only what is in the Bill, and not other matters which the Committee or the House has decided not to include in the Bill. I trust, however, that it will be in order for me to express my warm thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for all the time and care that he has given to expounding the legal aspects of the Bill.
There has never been any intention on the part of the Government to weaken the protection afforded by the 1959 Act to serious works of literature and art. The Bill leaves this protection unimpaired. Indeed, our proceedings have brought forth a statement by my right hon. and learned Friend, on behalf of the Attorney-General, about the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions which, I hope, may be helpful to all concerned.
The Bill is designed to strengthen the law as contained in the 1959 Act so as to enable the police to deal effectively with the commercial traffic in pornography. I believe that the view of the Government is widely shared by people up and down the country that it is imperative that these additional powers should be available to combat the possibility of young people being corrupted by this flood of pornographic trash which has been finding its way into retail shops in increasing quantities in recent years.
I was sorry that all the Opposition Members present decided to vote in Committee against the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill,

because Clause 1 is the main, operative Clause.

Mr. MacDermot: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent that vote. We were discussing at the same time a new Clause which suggested that the object to which the Home Secretary has just referred could be achieved in another and different way. That was the issue on which we voted.

Mr. Brooke: The fact remains that the Opposition Members who were present voted solidly, such as they were, against the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. They may have had in their minds other and less effective ways of accomplishing the object, but the Government's concern was to make the Bill effective. That, I believe, we have done.
Hitherto, it has been difficult effectively to check the activities of the importers and the wholesalers who handle this pornographic material. What the Bill will do will be, among other things, to enable criminal proceedings, with the possibility of substantial penalties, to be brought against the people who make their living from this disreputable trade. Surely that is an object which will have the support of all decent-minded people up and down the country. It is for that reason that I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: As the Home Secretary has just said, the Bill now comes before the House virtually in the same form as it was before the House on Second Reading. The result of our efforts in Committee has been to persuade the Home Secretary to accept one modest pair of Amendments, a pair of Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman accepted because he thought and declared that they would make no difference to the Bill. That is the same ground on which the Solicitor-General of the day accepted the Amendment which we have just been discussing in the 1959 Act. My view is that the Amendments were useful and that they materially alter one part of the Bill.
The greater part of the time and discussion has been devoted to the question of whether or not there should be secured in the Bill the right to jury trial. Great


anxieties arose following the "Fanny Hill" case about a publisher finding himself having to seek to defend on grounds of literary merit a book against the background of a sale in a pornographic bookshop and that issue being determined not by a jury but by a stipendiary magistrate. We have not succeeded in persuading the Government to write that matter into the Bill, but the Solicitor-General has given, and has repeated today on the Floor of the House, a statement of policy which goes, I think, a long way towards achieving our object. I should like to spend a moment drawing the attention of the House to what the terms of that assurance are, and, particularly, drawing to the attention of the book trade what the implications are.
First, I should say that I understand that the Solicitor-General, speaking, as he does, on behalf of the Attorney-General in this matter, has given to the House the view which the Attorney-General takes of the legal effect of the Bill, and that he is not merely declaring some administrative procedure which could be changed at any time but is merely declaring what, with the full weight of authority of his office, he understands to be the law, and, consequently, what would be the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions in giving effect to the Bill if it becomes law.
There were two things which we wanted to ensure. The first was that the reputable publisher publishing a book in this country who takes the risk—and it is a risk—of publishing a book which he believes to be permissible but which others may think objectionable on grounds of obscenity, could have the issue of its obscenity or non-obscenity or the issue whether the publication can be justified as being for the public good determined by a jury.
Secondly, we wanted to ensure that, when so tried, the publisher would be tried alone. I know that those who have had the task of seeking to put forward this defence of public good have found it extraordinarily difficult if they have had to do so when the whole background of the case which is being considered is a sale in a poky little pornographic bookshop in Soho, for the simple reason that it lays the defendant open to the cross-examination, "Are you suggesting

that the people who frequent the bookshop are in the slightest interested in the literary merits of the work?" For the purposes of any court proceedings, the question of obscenity or no has to be tested against the circumstances of the particular sale under consideration.
If, on the other hand, the publisher is prosecuted alone, and it is his intention, or his practice, to sell the work to the public at large, then the issue of obscenity or no gets tested against the background of its sale to the public at large and whether its sale can be justified as being to the public at large. That is not itself so important that he should be tried alone. We have, in effect, achieved an assurance that in certain circumstances the publisher will be able to ensure that he can have the issue of the obscenity or the literary merit of the book tried by a jury, and also that he will be tried alone when that is considered. But it is important that publishers should realise what are the preconditions that they must satisfy in order to secure this right.
Normally, when the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police, on his advice, are investigating a book about which there have been complaints, it is the practice, if the book is published in this country, to call on the publisher and interview him. If, at that stage, he affects surprise and indicates that, in view of the objections of the police, he will hold up publication or will not publish the work any further, he does not provide any material on which he can be prosecuted under the terms of this assurance.
What it amounts to is that a publisher who wants to ensure trial by jury has to make up his mind to stick to his guns if he is genuinely publishing a work that he considers to be justifiable owing to literary merit. He must make up his mind to see the thing through and must make clear that he intends to do so and will, if necessary, welcome having the matter decided by a jury. If he does that, it is the effect of the assurance we have been given that he will be prosecuted and will consequently have the right to elect for trial by jury.
But he must also realise the risks he is running. He will run the risk of being prosecuted successfully, when he may have to pay a fine which may be


heavy and possibly even face sentence of imprisonment—although I think that the House will agree that this is a possibility which may be dismissed in the case of any publisher who genuinely puts forward a defence of literary merit. It is surely unlikely that, if that defence fails, he will find himself sent to gaol but he may be subjected to a substantial fine.
So this is what we have secured with the co-operation of the Law Officers, and I repeat my thanks to them for the careful trouble they have taken in this matter. It may not be an assurance in a form that will give great comfort to the publishing trade, but in the way I have described it, and subject to the limitations I have pointed out, I think we can say that we have secured a limited right to trial by jury and, above all, a right to trial alone, which is, perhaps, the most important thing of all.
Another subject which we considered at some length in Committee was the question of the practice of disclaimer. It is important that the House should know the extent to which it is intended to continue the practice of disclaimer if we give this Bill a Third Reading. The disclaimer procedure, roughly speaking, means that, when the police are investigating bulk stocks of pornography held by the commercial pornographer at whom the Bill is aimed, sometimes, instead of applying to the courts for a summons for forfeiture, or instead of proceeding by way of criminal proceedings, they will enable the person who, in effect, is the owner of the goods, to disclaim ownership of them. Then, instead of the goods being subject to any further process of law, they are taken away and destroyed.
I do not know whether it is still the same but the form of disclaimer in 1957, as related in the police memorandum to the Select Committee, was, "I, so and so, do hereby disclaim ownership of the above items of property seized by the police from my bookshop at such and such an address on such and such a date". In Committee I characterised that disclaimer as being, in effect, a lie. That was a strong word to use. Perhaps a happier expression would be that it is a fiction.
I hold that it is a fiction, because in law, Mr. Speaker, you cannot, just by

signing a piece of paper, get rid of your ownership of property. It is very difficult to abandon ownership and title in property. If the police take away goods in this manner, in law the property in the goods still remains in the person who signs the disclaimer. The only effect of the disclaimer is that it provides a protection for the police if they take away the goods and destroy them in that they cannot subsequently be sued by the person from whom the goods were taken away for any wrongful seizure of the goods. That is the object of the disclaimer and it is one which the commercial pornographer, in many circumstances, welcomes, because it enables the matter to be dealt with quietly without his being subjected to proceedings in a court.
I consider it to be an undesirable practice. It is not right, when the police are enforcing the law and when they find circumstances which constitute a criminal offence, that they should go through this charade of the disclaimer procedure in order quietly to achieve the object of the law in a manner for which the law does not provide. If we give a Third Reading to the Bill, mere possession of pornographic or obscene articles with a view to publication for gain will be a criminal offence. Therefore, in circumstances in which the police would use the disclaimer procedure, they would have evidence to bring a criminal prosecution for the new offence.
If they thought that the circumstances were such that it was not necessary to bring criminal proceedings to restrict the activities of a pornographer, they would have the chance to bring forfeiture proceedings, which do not involve a criminal conviction against him. That is what Parliament has provided for and we have just been reminded by the Solicitor-General of the great wisdom of Parliament in 1959 in providing these two procedures. What we did not provide for was the disclaimer. On the contrary, we all assumed that it would die since we gave the new and wider powers with the forfeiture procedure in the 1959 Act.
The Select Committee on Obscene Publications, in paragraph 30 of its Report, said:
The routine of police activities is at present hindered by the fact that a trial court


has no power to order the destruction of obscene material. If a person has been successfully prosecuted under common law, a further summons is necessary under the Obscene Publications Act, 1857, for the defendant to show cause why the material should not be destroyed. The lack of such a power is one of the reasons given by the police for their use of the undesirable practice of 'disclaimers', by which a bookseller or other person completes a form …
The Select Committee then went on to describe the procedure, which it rightly described as undesirable.
If it was undesirable then, but explicable because the police did not have sufficient powers, surely it was undesirable and inexplicable for it to continue after the passing of the 1959 Act. Now, when we are giving even wider powers to the police, namely, the power to bring a criminal prosecution for mere possession with a view to publication for gain, I cannot see any reason why the Home Secretary should want to give his blessing to a continuance of the disclaimer procedure.
The right hon. Gentleman told us in Committee that he would look at the matter again. The only defence he put forward for it then was that it had been approved by the chief magistrate at Bow Street. I do not find that a very convincing argument. It is a matter for the House to decide whether to approve it. It is not for the chief magistrate at Bow Street. I can see that he would approve it, because it might save him some rather tedious work in connection with forfeiture proceedings.
I should like to ask the Home Secretary what the present procedure is. When the memorandum was put in by the police to the Select Committee they described the practice as follows:
This practice has been in use for many years. It has the advantage of saving time—i.e. no summons is issued or served and there is no hearing before a Magistrate and no examination of documents by a Magistrate.
When the Home Secretary was explaining the procedure in Committee he contended that it involved the articles being brought before the magistrate again, after the disclaimer had been signed. If the Home Secretary is right about that it would seem to indicate a change in pratice in the disclaimer procedure as described to the Select Committee.
My own view—and I hope that it is the view of the House—is that the disclaimer

procedure should now cease. I cannot see why the Home Secretary should want to retain it. As he told the House once again just now, the whole purpose of the Bill is to try to take more effective action against the commercial pornographer. If he wants to have stronger powers against him why does he now continue a procedure which is, in effect, going to let him off the hook?
I turn finally to the point which the Home Secretary put forward in commending the Bill, namely, that it will give effective powers to the police to stamp out commercial pornography, which is causing offence to so many people. For a few minutes I want to examine the nature of this pornographic trade, and to see how far the Home Secretary's claim that the Bill will help to stamp it out is justified.
We heard little, either in the Second Reading debate or in Committee, about the nature of this trade. I have had drawn to my attention an enlightening lecture given by the Deputy Director of Public Proscutions to a conference on pornography and public morals which was convened by the Public Morality Council in November last. He said, in effect, that pornography is now big business, and that there are three types of pornography—first, the American paper-back novel; secondly, what he called Soho photographs and, thirdly, pin-up magazines.
The first class is numerically much the greatest. The theme of these novels is almost invariably a combination of sex and violence. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these are the most pernicious forms of pornography. Like John Cowper Powys, I regard sadism as the great evil of this age. For some curious reason our American friends seem to find violence, especially sexual violence, less unattractive than we do.
The profits to be made from the sale of these novels are very great. Importers in this country buy the novels at little more than scrap value, for the simple reason that when they buy them they are virtually scrap. Apparently, such is the trade in these novels in America that titles very soon go out of fashion, and if they are not sold very quickly there is virtually no market for them in America, and they are then exported for sale to


countries which are ready to import them. The result is that huge profits are made.
Until a few years ago there were no American paperback novels in this country, but in 1961 the restrictions on dollar imports were relaxed and as a result between 1961 and 1963 the police and Customs actually seized 1,863,000 obscene novels imported from America. It is rather interesting to see that the Deputy-Director of Public Prosecutions went on to explain those figures to the Council in these terms:
It may help to some appreciation of that figure if I say that, according to the Registrar-General's figures, there were only 1,657,000 girls and boys in this country between the ages of 14 and 16 years. That means in those two years there were actually seized in this country more obscene American novels than there are children between the ages of 14 and 16 years to read them.
I say that that is curious, coming from the Deputy-Director of Public Prosecutions, because it seems to assume that the market for this literature is teen-age children between the ages of 14 and 16. If there is evidence to support that I should be very interested to know what it is. It is a curious thing that in all the discussions on obscene publications no one ever seeks to obtain any objective information about the people who purchase it. It is always assumed that it is aimed at teen-agers. It is always assumed that it is teen-agers who buy it and who will be corrupted by it.
I have read through all the evidence given before the Select Committee on Obscene Publications and there was only one answer given by anyone directly to this question who are the purchasers of obscene publications. That was given by Lady Cynthia Colville, the chief witness on behalf of the Morality Council which convened the conference at which the Deputy-Director was speaking. I wonder what he thought of this passage. Lady Cynthia Colville said to the Select Committee—it is Question No. 21 on 12th December, 1957:
I think probably it is true to say they"—
she was dealing there with the second category of pornography—the sexual photographs—
are not sold to young people, for two reasons: the first is that a young person has not the money, and the other is that generally they are the interest of the grown-up person. In the shops I have been in"—

they were discussing the Soho bookshops, the very shops we are told at which this Bill is directed—
many times, the shops the usually full of that ageing, middle-aged sort of person".
I do not know how many ageing, middle-aged sorts of persons there are in this country to buy the 1,863,000 novels which were seized by the Customs, but that answer, I think, is an important reminder of who are the real purchasers of most of this obscenity.
The Deputy-Director went on to say that it was difficult to hazard a guess from the actual figures of those works imported into the country. He went on to hazard the guess that the police and Customs—

Mr. William Shepherd: On a point of order. Is it in order in a Third Reading speech to make these extensive quotations from a speech given elsewhere?

Mr. Speaker: I was wondering. I think that the hon. and learned Gentler man may be discussing what is the effect in operation of the content of the Bill as it now is. I think it is just defensible on that line.

Mr. MacDermot: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry that by that intervention you should have been called on to explain why it was that you were allowing me to continue to address the House as I was.
The speaker said he thought that the authorities were lucky if they seized more than one in six of all the imported novels of this kind. I wish to ask the Home Secretary why he thinks that this Bill will enable us to help him to seize any more than one in six, because there are no additional powers of seizure in the Bill at all. The powers of seizure remain exactly the same.
All the Bill does is to duplicate the powers of seizure by a new power to prosecute for a criminal offence, which means that the people whom the police do trace—the one in six—they can now prosecute instead of going by the forfeiture proceedings. It will not help in the slightest to trace or take any action against the five-sixths who are escaping detection. This is an important point to bear in mind in judging the claims put forward by the Home Secretary that


the Bill will in some way help to stamp out the trade in economical pornography.
The second category that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with is the category of Soho photographs which are indecent photographs, sold apparently for 5s. a piece, which cost 4d. to manufacture, and again produce a very substantial profit. They are photographs which I think anyone would characterise as obscene. As an indication of the quantity which are sold, in the third category, namely, pin-up magazines, the people at this conference were told that in one shop alone the records showed that the takings from the sale of these photographs were as much as £100 a day, or £30,000 a year.
In spite of the seizures and forfeiture proceedings taken against those booksellers the attempt to stamp out this trade is quite vain. The way it was put in the address was that
The extent of this trade can be seen from the fact that on one raid last week, the police seized over eight tons of magazines of this kind.
And, of nude photographs:
Their printers and publishers are changing every day and the police find that their efforts to stem the tide of these magazines are rather those of Canute.
I ask the same question: what power, under the Bill, will help them to stem that tide if the printers and publishers are being changed every day? The truth is that the effect of the Bill, if it has an effect, will be a distinctly limited one. It will be that in cases where at the moment the police can go by forfeiture, but could not prosecute because they could not find evidence of an actual sale, they will be able in future to prosecute for the new offence of having the obscene article for publication for gain.
The question is: who is to be prosecuted? In many cases the only person the police will be able to find to prosecute will be a shop assistant in the shop who, up to now, has not been open to prosecution at all. I do not imagine that the prosecution of people of that kind will do very much to deter the commercial pornographer who is making huge fortunes out of trading in this kind of material. Even if now and again the police should succeed in tracing one of the big men, as it were, behind the

scenes, who are making really big money and can obtain a prosecution and a prison sentence on a man of that kind, the volume of this material is such, and the fortunes which are being made from it are such, that even a prison sentence for an occasional offender is not likely to deter the rest of the pornographers from carrying on with their trade.
I say all these things not to try to decry the Bill, or to suggest that the House should not give it a Third Reading, but because I think it desirable that we should not delude ourselves and that we should understand what the limitations of a Bill of this character are. My view is that the Bill will possibly have some effect, but relatively little, in achieving its real object of deterring large-scale commercial pornography. I feel that we should be deluding ourselves to think otherwise, and deluding the public if we were to suggest otherwise.
From the start I have never liked the Bill, because it creates a new offence; making mere possession of an article with a view to publication for gain a criminal offence. I have grave doubts whether it will make any serious difference in the volume of the pornographic trade, and I think it regrettable that the Bill does not include the right to trial by jury. This summarises my own attitude to the Measure—and, of course, I am speaking only personally. But in spite of those drawbacks to the Bill, I myself do not feel sufficiently strongly opposed to it to want to vote against its Third Reading.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) has summarised my whole attitude to the Bill. I cannot congratulate the Home Secretary on his somewhat inflexible conduct, but I would congratulate him on one thing, and that is on having kept the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) quiet since Second Reading. The hon. Member has constantly sat in on our proceedings, brooding oppressively on what has been going on, but he has not opened his mouth since the Second Reading. That is probably because he is entirely satisfied with what the Home Secretary is doing, which is one thing that makes me very suspicious of the Home Secretary's conduct of the Bill.
The Home Secretary, as has been pointed out at several stages of this Bill's progress, has not applied himself really seriously to the arguments that have been put forward. Of course, he says that he wants to stamp out pornography, and very occasionally one of his hon. Friend's has said the same thing, but no attempt has been made to deal with the particular method by which this should or should not be done. In his Third Reading speech, the right hon. Gentleman said—I made a note of it—"every decent-minded person up and down the country will welcome the Bill". I should like to draw his attention, if that has not already been done, to one person who does not welcome the Bill. He is one of the Home Secretary's own constituents, and probably one of the country's most distinguished publishers—Sir Stanley Unwin.
He wrote to the Home Secretary on 2nd July, and was kind enough to send me a copy. The letter begins:
I am very disturbed by some of the implications of the Obscene Publications Bill which will shortly be before Parliament for a third reading, because it has the effect of removing so much of the protection of the 1959 Act afforded to bona fide and reputable publishers.
May I draw your attention to one or two specific points?
One Clause says, 'a person shall be deemed to have an article for publication for gain if with a view to such publication he has the article in his ownership, possession or control'. Unsolicited manuscripts pour into this office daily and until they have been examined I naturally have not the slightest knowledge of their contents. Moreover, they are often sent prior to careful examination to outside readers for their opinions. Under this Clause I might well be guilty of an offence. The fact that a law officer will assure me that I should not be guilty gives me no comfort, because past experience has shown me that all such assurances have, in practice, little or no value.
It would seem that Sir Stanley is following in the substance of his general conclusion about the great inferiority of the Law Officers' assurances, however well-meant, to a statutory provision, a thought that has been with us constantly—

Mr. Charles Doughty: If the hon. Member will look at Clause 1 (3, a) he will see that it provides an excellent defence, and deals with the objection raised by the person to whom the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Jenkins: It is a defence that, in certain circumstances, could be used and, I hope, will be used—

Mr. Paget: But it could never be used by a publisher.

Mr. Jenkins: —but I doubt very much whether it could be used by a publisher in exactly these circumstances. In any case, this was only one of the points Sir Stanley Unwin raised; he made a number of others with which I do not intend now to weary the House. Nevertheless, they were points expressed by a publisher of great knowledge and great repute, and a constituent of the Home Secretary—

It being Ten o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Obscene Publications Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Jenkins: I should be extremely glad to know whether the Home Secretary considers that this publisher—one of his leading constituents—is numbered among, or excluded from, every decent-minded person up and down the country whom he blandly assured the House on Second Reading would welcome the Bill.
I have no doubt—I said this clearly on Second Reading, and I accept the view now—there may be some faults which have shown themselves in the working of the 1959 Act. I do not take the view that it was quite unnecessary to bring forward any amending legislation. I was certainly prepared to look at such legislation. The Home Secretary started by saying that he wanted to do this compatibly with giving every possible protection to reputable literature. I do not think that in his behaviour, particularly in Committee, but also on Report and in his general attitude to the Bill, he has shown any desire to take account of the arguments which have been advanced. He has the natural inflexibility and confident self-righteousness of the true censor. I do not feel very happy with these matters left in his hands.
I hope that the assurance we got from the Solicitor-General means something. I am sure that with a little good will it


would have been possible to put this into statutory form. I am very sorry that it was not done. I think that the Bill, although some part of it may be necessary, remains unsatisfactory to those who have regard to the interests of genuine and reputable publishers and works of genuine literary merit.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Abse: As perhaps the House may be aware from what I may have had the opportunity of saying in the past, now that we are on Third Reading I still have little enthusiasm, to say the least, for the Bill. I believe that in many respects it is as suspect as the material with which it is attempting to deal.
We have spent a very long time on the Bill. One of the few matters for which I would rely on the Home Secretary is his arithmetic. I would be quite prepared to accept it from him, without necessarily doing my own addition, that we have spent 11 hours on the Bill. My comment on that is that it seems that we spent a great portion of last year discussing immorality and that we are apparently condemned to spend a great deal of this year discussing morality.
I doubt if ever there was a Parliament which spent so much time on what many people may regard as a great deal of irrelevancy which is far removed from the country's major problems. Having looked at the contents of what is now before the House, I suspect that if this lingering Parliament went on very much longer the Home Secretary would be bringing in legislation about dirty jokes and writing upon the walls of public lavatories.
In my view, there are four reasons why the contents of the Bill are suspect. The first reason has been touched on by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). It is that we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever as to whom this material is alleged to have corrupted and whether, in fact, it corrupts at all. I do not like legislation that is based upon the repugnance and disgust of a section of the community. I think that legislation, when it comes before the House, should be based upon a sociological survey. It should be based upon statistical survey. It should be based upon some knowledge.
I regard with deep concern a Bill which makes the assumption, in the way in which the Home Secretary, in a didactic and dictatorial manner assumes, that all this material must be corrupting young people, as he said. The right hon. Gentleman takes dangerous strolls round Soho. I fear them. I often go to Soho to escape from the institutionalised food which the public school spirit imposes upon us in the House of Commons. When I have gone to Soho I have observed, as anybody with his eyes wide open must observe, that the people who prowl around these pornographic bookshops are not boys of 14 to 16, but pathetic, isolated, aging people—usually about the age of the Home Secretary.
Is it not characteristic of our lack of knowledge in depth that suggestions are made about youth being corrupted? Are there not reasons why we keep on talking about youth being corrupted by sex? Some of it is antagonism on the part of an ageing group for young juveniles; people who fear them, their potency and their life and who, under the guise of pretending that they are protecting them, deny them their right and inheritance—their right to live and grow up as men and women in the fullest sense. For these reasons I say that, in my view, we are presented with a Bill which is not based on any evidence of fact.
This brings me to the second reason why I find the Bill suspect. I attempted to delineate my reasons for finding it suspect on Second Reading and at this stage, with the Bill standing in its present form, I must again say that the Bill spits in the face of history. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North made out a perfect case and spoke of attempts that have been made to prevent the Bill being like King Canute's efforts to turn the tide, that is precisely what I said on Second Reading. The same could be said of every other occasion in the past when there has been an attempt, as this Bill attempts, to suppress pornography. On each occasion, unfortunately, what has happened is that pornography has been driven partially underground and higher prices have been obtained for it.
Is it not a fact that this has happened when sponsors of past legislation have


attempted to take the sort of action proposed by this Bill? I fear that that will happen on this occasion. It is rather like an iceberg. The information given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North did not surprise me. Five-sixths of pornography, as it were, is still underground. That will continue to be untouched, in all probability, by all the action that is claimed to be within the Bill.
I believe that the only way to contain this wretched material is when public taste is able to assert itself. There is a danger, too—and this is the third reason for expressing my diffidence about the Bill—that the Bill may cause other troubles. I have been thinking about it and, although I cannot recall the poet's name, there are some words which go something like this:
Singing is sweet,
But to be sure of this,
Lips only sing
When they cannot kiss.
What he was trying to show in those words was that the poet sings about romance when he is denied sex. The man who lives a full life may be less inclined to romanticise; and there are some conclusions to be drawn from that.
I believe that the millions of people who are so wretched and fragmented in their sexual attitudes that they are buying pornographic material are buying it because they are obviously gaining some satisfaction from it. They must be, because, regrettably, otherwise they would not be spending so much money on it. They must be getting something out of it or they would not be buying it on such a huge scale, a scale which I find frightening, for quite different reasons from that of the Home Secretary.
I find it frightening not because I think that they will be corrupted, but because there are so many millions of people who are turning to such material. What are the difficulties which they have in their personal problems which mean that they indulge in this type of behaviour in order to find some happiness on the sexual plane? I find that a chastening and sad thought. But it does not cause me to react in a violent or punitive attitude. It creates in me a different attitude entirely.
The Bill may cause other troubles. If we drive things underground, and

deny certain outlets, then we do not know in what other ways we may have trouble. If those who sweep the prostitutes off the streets, and into the passages, sweep them too far away, without trying to deal with the reasons why men seek out prostitutes, they may be encouraging violence and other types of behaviour. It is too easy and facile an assumption which is contained within the view that if we ban pornography we shall not, as a consequence, when it is on such a large scale as it clearly is now, see some unpleasant consequences flow from our action. I do not agree with an attitude which leads to a Bill which is just an emotional spasm reacting against this problem without going into the matter in the detail which it requires.
I am opposed to the Bill—or perhaps "opposed" is too strong a word. I am indifferent to the Bill, because it deflects attention from the real reasons why a vast amount of pornography is being bought on such a scale. If we had not a Bill of this kind, might we not be examining such problems as sex education in schools, the training of child care officers, which is so inadequate, why our matrimonial guidance service is still so insufficient, and why we have insufficient probation officers to help solve family problems? We might be considering these matters if we were not deflecting our attention from them in a Bill of this kind. We might be considering the real etiology of pornography and examining why people read it. I believe that that would have led us to concern ourselves with the stability of family life.
The Home Secretary may think that in the Bill he has been a great champion of morality. In his puritanical zeal he may think that he has struck a blow against those people who are the predatory pornographic traffickers. But in my view what he has done is to indulge himself and a large group of people who lack compassion and humanity towards those who need it, and who fail to ask themselves why it is that people are buying millions and millions of copies of trash. This is not a very glorious moment in the House of Commons. It is an inglorious interlude, like some of the other punitive actions which we get from the Home Secretary these days.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Sometimes when the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) speaks I support what he says. Sometimes I am against him. Tonight I am dead against him. In a few sentences he has made quite clear what his views are—to sell pornography where one likes and to whom one likes and to let the person who buys it be the judge. By then it may be too late. But that is the hon. Member's view. Speaking entirely for myself—I do not know whether other hon. Members support me—I am dead against that view.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) summed up the situation when he said that we are dealing with an enormous trade and business which makes a tremendous amount of money and does not care two straws whom it corrupts and whom it depraves and what is the result of its trade and traffic. We may criticise the Bill and say that it does not go very far. It may be true. One could go a great deal further. I well remember the 1959 Bill. It started as a Private Member's Bill, introduced, I believe, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). If I am wrong, I apologise to him, but at any rate he supported it. I recollect the great difficulty which the Government had in persuading the House, when they gave time to the Bill, to accept a large number of necessary and advisable Amendments.
At any rate the Bill went through and it became the law of the land. In many ways it was a liberalising Bill and I hoped at the same time that it was a Bill which would put an end to this vast trade in filthy books dealing with fornication—and I do not like to use the word "sex" because in this context fornication is the right word. The fact is, however, that this Bill will not put an end to it any more than the Criminal Justice Act puts an end to all larceny, theft and robbery, but at least this Bill will do something towards that end.
The fact that a constituent of the Home Secretary may have objected to it, and on entirely wrong ground, is wholly irrelevant. I always thought, anyway, that letters from constituents to Members of Parliament were private. I have always taken that view. If such a letter is to be read in the House of

Commons that certainly will not alter the line which I have always taken.

Mr. Paget: The hon. and learned Member cannot have been here on the classic occasion when the hon Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) was accused of having passed on a private letter from a constituent, who was a parson, to his bishop and the House decided that letters from constituents to Members were in no way private, by a majority vote carried by the Conservative Party.

Mr. Doughty: That may well be so. Although I have been in the House many years perhaps I was not here at that time.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: It might be held that it would be inappropriate for a constituent, without the consent of the Member, to publish something written to him by a Member of Parliament. Equally, it would be inappropriate for a Member to publish something written to him by a constituent. That was the issue in the case of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers), but an ordinary citizen has a perfect right when he writes to his Member of Parliament to give what publicity he likes to the letter. Sir Stanley Unwin decided to do this, and having received the letter I decided to draw the attention of the House to it.

Mr. Doughty: The conduct of Sir Stanley Unwin is open to grave criticism and I make it here and now. Apart from the fact that it was nonsense, I make that criticism as well.

Mr. Jenkins: Absolutely absurd.

Mr. Doughty: It is no good the hon. Member saying "Absolutely absurd" while he is sitting on his—

Mr. Jenkins: I will say it standing up.

Mr. Doughty: I repeat that I criticise his behaviour and I hope that Members of Parliament and their constituents will feel that when they correspond with each other the matter is at least private. That is my answer to that particular gentleman's views.
The Bill deals with a number of matters which have arisen since 1959. I need not refer to particular cases dealing with negatives held to be not obscene


because they were not positives, and rather technical matters of that kind. If the Bill goes any distance at all to help to put an end to this enormous trade it has my great support. I cannot follow the minds of hon. Members, wherever they may sit in the House, who want to encourage this trade and who want to say, "Do not let us have the magistrates dealing with it.". I am a great believer in the magistrates. They do an extremely good job for which the majority of them are unpaid. They have great experience of local matters and of the way people can be corrupted. They see these people before them in other capacities and they know that this pornography is one of the matters, though not by any means the only one, which certainly lead to the difficulties and troubles with which the young, whether they be teen-agers or people over 21, are affected and as a result come before the courts. If we could have a stronger Bill which increased the penalties and dealt with the shopkeepers who trade in this kind of literature and photographs, whether they be American, English or of any other origin, it would have my wholehearted support. If it dealt with people who for money are prepared to corrupt people, of whatever age, I can assure hon. Members that I would most certainly support it.
If hon. Members opposite—and, in fairness, I should say that I think that there are only one or two of them—I am not accusing hon. Members opposite in toto—want to flood the country with pornography, as obviously they do, and to fill the shops with pornographic literature of various kinds, I am sure that no one else in the House would agree with them. I hope that the Bill, such as it is, will get a Third Reading.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) further marred what would have been a particularly absurd speech by advancing the most laughable proposition ever presented to the House of Commons in my knowledge, namely, that a constituent who wishes to air a public matter on a Bill before the House, and who decides to write to his Member of Parliament on the subject, commits an offence by sending a copy of that letter to other Members of the House.
This is the most laughable and absurd proposition which could have been advanced. I should have thought—

Mr. Doughty: Mr. Doughty rose—

Mr. Foot: If the hon. and learned Member will remain seated, he can intervene in a moment after he has given some consideration to the matter.
The hon. and learned Member advanced this ridiculous proposition—which I should have thought the Home Secretary would be eager and the first to repudiate—to besmirch the character of a man with the highest reputation, Sir Stanley Unwin. I should have thought that he would be eager, on consideration, to withdraw such an accusation. He committed no offence in any sense. There is no shadow of reflection which could be cast on him. For the hon. and learned Member to barge in and suggest that such a reflection should be cast on him is an absurdity. The hon. and learned Member can now intervene.

Mr. Doughty: I will do so standing up. I objected to the bad taste of that man, and not about whether it was a breach of privilege of this House, or nonsense of that sort. It was of the very worst possible taste.

Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Member now wants to censor the letters which members of the public send to Members of Parliament. There cannot be a single Member in the House who agrees with him on that. There is no reflection—and I have never mentioned any question of privilege—on the good taste of Sir Stanley Unwin. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) had every right to quote such a letter, and every other hon. Member must recognise that to be the case.
The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East then proceeded to make an allegation against some hon. Members on this side, whom, bravely, he did not specify, by saying that they wished to see this country flooded with pornographic material. That is an absolutely false charge which could be made only by a person who had either never listened properly to the debates on this matter, or was incapable of understanding what he heard. No one listening to the speeches made by any hon. Member throughout these proceedings could have made such a suggestion.
My non. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and myself take a different view from some hon. Members about the Bill. That does not mean that we want to see the country flooded with this kind of material. We have suggested—and there is a great deal of evidence to support our view; it has not been contested by anybody with real evidence or facts—that sometimes the best way to flood the country with this kind of material is to censor it, because that makes it all the more attractive. [Laughter.] The hon. and learned Member laughs, as though that was an absurd proposition.
Everybody knows that some of the books which have been most widely circulated throughout the country have been the ones which have been condemned. If the hon. and learned Member does not understand this, he cannot have listened to the arguments. To suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, or myself, or any other hon. Member, is eager to see this kind of material pouring into the country is to show a complete lack of comprehension of everything which has been said throughout our proceedings. I have never heard a more half-witted utterance in the House of Commons. Having made his absurd remark, the hon. and learned Member has not the courtesy to withdraw it and, apparently, repeats the allegation from what he regards as being an unproper position from which anyone should make remarks in the House of Commons.
It is quite untrue that any of us have wished to see this kind of material flooding the country. The argument in that respect is how best to stop it. We do not think that the best way is to censor it. This stuff is utterly boring and the Government, by their censorship measures, add an element of attraction to it which it would not otherwise possess. That is not the best way of dealing with it, but I can understand that hon. Members do not agree with me about that.
I can understand hon. Members wishing to do what the Home Secretary says he wants to do—that is, to stop the flood of utterly pornographic material for which no excuse or defence could be made. If that is what the Home

Secretary solely wanted to do, he could have got through the Bill in much less than the 11 hours' discussion, because he could have devised the Measure differently and he could have considered earlier the prelude to the 1959 Act.
I do not suppose that there has ever been a Private Member's Bill which was passed through the House of Commons that was so meticulously examined before it was presented to the House. We had Select Committees, discussions, debates on the Reports of the Select Committees and the full paraphernalia of debate on the Bill. As a result, a compromise was reached between hon. Members who think that it is right to take this kind of severe Measure as the best way of stopping the spread of this pornographic material and those who are more concerned about the protection of literary merit. A compromise was reached between these two ideas. The Bill that was introduced in 1959 did not satisfy my hon. Friend in any particular and it did not satisfy the Government in every particular, but an intelligent compromise was reached.
Therefore, when the Government, with a few weeks or months to spare at the end of a Session, which they thought might end earlier, had to pick Bills out of the pigeonhole, they had a responsibility, and the responsibility was primarily upon the head of the Home Secretary, to ensure that they behaved fairly towards that compromise. Had the Home Secretary introduced a Bill which said that all he wanted to do was to see how the Measure had operated since 1959, and to strengthen the police powers against the spread of pornographic material, but, at the same time, to inflict no injury whatever on the principles that my hon. Friend had established in his Bill—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he will bear in mind that this is a Third Reading debate and that he cannot discuss what is not in the Bill.

Mr. Foot: I hope that I was not doing that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Certainly, I was not intending to do so.
I was saying that if the Bill which is before us represented fairly the compromise that had been reached in the


1959 Act, and was solely concerned to to deal with loopholes which had arisen, it would have gone through swiftly and we would not have got into the arguments of the sort I have had with the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East; because none of us cares very much as long as the measures taken against the pornographic trash do not interfere with the publication of reputable literary matter.
The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, does not agree with that very much. But apparently many hon. Members opposite do not agree with it, because, throughout the whole of the proceedings on the Bill, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), they have made no effort to safeguard the position from this point of view.
Events have occurred since 1959 which were never foreseen then. Primarily, the situation is that a magistrate operating alone is able to decide whether a book like "Fanny Hill" should be published or not. The peril of the Bill is that its condonation of this state of affairs will interfere with free publication in future.
This is not a question which is merely concerned with the books that have already been dealt with under the law. It is not merely concerned with the books that may come before the law in the next few years. It is concerned with a whole series of decisions that publishers have to take about all kinds of books they will publish.
It is no good the Home Secretary suggesting, as he did, that there is no impairment of the protections under the 1959 Act. The advice which lawyers now give to publishers as to what they can safely publish has been altered by the "Fanny Hill" case and even more by what is being done in the Bill and by the Government's persistent refusal, both in Committee and on Report, to accept Amendments we have put forward.
If the Government think that the position is not altered, that the position in the publishing trade is not affected, then that merely shows that they are completely ignorant of what has occurred and have made no effort to discover how this Measure is likely to affect the legitimate, decent publishing trade. This is illus-

trated by the letter from one of the most eminent publishers in the country, which has been quoted tonight.
There is, however, one way—and I hope that it will happen—in which the dangers which the Government have refused to guard against can be overcome, and that is by the courage of the publishing trade itself. They will only be able to safeguard their position by refusing to knuckle under to the kind of atmosphere the Government seek to create, by having the courage to stand by the authors they think should be published, by using to the maximum the protections that still remain from the 1959 Act, even though these are being injured by the Bill.
I hope that the publishers, despite the fears aroused by the way in which the Government have behaved in this matter, will not be led by this kind of atmosphere into reintroducing the kind of stringency in publishing which prevailed before 1959 and which led to the introduction of the 1959 Act.
If the right to publish freely in the freshened atmosphere introduced by the 1959 Act is retained, it will be due to brave publishers who believe in freedom, people who have to take risks to preserve freedom, and not to a Government who have taken no risks, but have squalidly sought to use the natural antagonism towards filthy pornography to injure the rights of legitimate publishers.
Those members of the Government who may be slightly less barbarian than others cannot be proud of what the Government have done in the Bill. Before it is passed perhaps they will think of all the authors who had to suffer at the hands of the same kind of people which the 1959 Act was designed to protect them against. These people have spent their lives trying to produce a book which they have got in them, in which they think they have something to say to the world—something unique in many cases. They have had to spend the agony of their souls producing them. James Joyce was such a person; D. H. Lawrence was such a person. These people spent their lives producing one or two books.
Some of those books have, in the past, been suppressed by censors; the authors have had their livelihoods taken away by the censors, who are not prepared to


allow freedom to print. After the deaths of many authors whose books have been suppressed in their lifetimes, those books have made fortunes. I do not know whether any hon. Member opposite feels that that kind of suppression is a small matter. Some of my hon. Friends and I do not think that it is. We think that some of the people to whom the Bill may apply are the most important people who have ever lived. They have something fresh and original and unique to give to the world.
These are the people who have to be protected and safeguarded, and who should not have their livelihoods taken away from them—as can happen from this form of suppression. This can be distinguished clearly from any question of stopping pornographic trash. But the

Government do not care what happens to this kind of people. History is littered with the stories of authors who have had their precious productions destroyed by people with the same kind of mind as the Home Secretary.
We have been dealing with a subject which is beyond the right hon. Gentleman's range and outside his understanding. I hope that when a future Government deal with these matters they will be more careful, and understand that they are not dealing just with the question of pornographic trashy floods of material pushed on to the market for the exploitation of the young or the old, but also dealing with something much more important—something to which they should be prepared to bring a discrimination and a care which we do not expect from the present Home Secretary.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I did not intend to intervene, and I shall be very brief, but I cannot allow the sort of autocratic speech to which we have just listened to go without comment. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) was no doubtsincere, but he charged not only the Government but the greater part of the country with being a bunch of barbarians. I do not think that he has the experience which he claims; I very much doubt whether he has the experience that I claim in this matter.
I ask him whether he wants the removal of censorship of the theatre and the films. If he is asking for the removal of censorship of the theatre, I wonder whether he has had the opportunity to listen to or read—and read aloud—any of the pornographic plays which are submitted regularly to the Lord Chamberlain, and which I have had the misfortune of having to read.
If he had read that class of material he would have realised how much responsibility lies with the Lord Chamberlain, for many playwrights today are concerned solely with trying to push pornography for the purposes of profit. There can be no doubt that the removal of the powers of the Lord Chamberlain from that field would lead to a mass of prurient muck being thrown around the country.
The hon. Member can see what these so-called artists write. If he wants that opportunity, I am sure that he can get it from Colonel Payne. He will be able to see the way in which these authors steadily try to erode the standards of playwrights in this country. The Bill is not merely about James Joyce, or D. H. Lawrence; it is about the cinema bleu—and we have to have a French name for the type of perversions which are purveyed by that class of film. The Bill is concerned with the filthy postcards which are usually associated with Port Said and the parties who engage in perverted practices. It is the whole realm of real filth. It is idle to say that these matters ought to go for trial by jury or at the assize courts. In 99 cases out of 100 that class of material can be condemned by the magistrates. They must have the powers which the Bill will give

when it becomes an Act to enable them to carry into effect the rapid suppression of that class of material.
Therefore, the only real issue which is debatable is a very narrow point, the question whether, in a genuine borderline case—the typical class of case being "Lady Chatterley's Lover"—the brake should be applied by administrative action, or by this House. I said in Committee, and still hold the view, that it would have been better to have done it by an Amendment, but we have had the assurance by the Solicitor-General that where there is a genuine case that opportunity will be given to the publisher and the author to go for trial by jury and raise the defence under the Act. I rise merely to reiterate that that was my understanding of the assurance given by the Home Secretary. I am sure that any Government of the day will honour it.
In those circumstances, the speech to which we have just listened seems too autocratic by far and one far beyond what the hon. Member, when he has an opportunity to reflect, will see was warranted by the occasion. In his attack on the Home Secretary he was quite unjustified. On all these matters the Home Secretary has had the advice of judges, lawyers and those who have to try to suppress the 99 per cent. of material which, I think, on reflection, the hon. Member will realise ought to be suppressed by administrative action.

10.42 p.m.

Sir Cyril Black: I welcomed the Bill on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) was quite correct in pointing out that I have not intervened since making that speech on that occasion. He was also correct in the reason he attributed to me for my silence. It is that I have been very well satisfied with the unwillingness of the Home Secretary to accept wrecking and weakening Amendments to the Bill. For that reason, I felt it unnecessary to prolong the proceedings by making speeches.
I was anxious, as I believe the great majority of hon. Members and also the great majority of members of the public are, that this Bill should reach the Statute Book and become effective in law at the earliest possible moment. For that reason it seemed that I was helping


the purpose I had in view by not intervening in debates in which no intervention by me was necessary. I have never held the view that the best contribution to the work of the House is necessarily made by those hon. Members who make interminable speeches or speeches of inordinate length. The purpose of the House is to pass useful legislation. I believe this to be a useful Bill and I commend the Home Secretary and the Government for having introduced it.
I have no desire to raise the temperature of this debate. There is no reason why I should. I do not want to castigate hon. Members who hold the point of view expressed this evening and on other occasions by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I have listened to their speeches and tried to understand their point of view. They will not expect me to agree with them. Their point of view is vastly different and very far removed from mine, but, of course, I recognise their right to hold that view and, holding it as they do, I recognise their right to express it.
The only thing I would say is that, holding the views that they have expressed on Second Reading and tonight and in Committee, I find it very surprising that they did not divide the House on Second Reading, because practically everything they have said has been critical and condemnatory of the Bill, and not only in detail but on the general principles embodied in the Bill. If I had felt half as strongly as they apparently felt in their Second Reading speeches, I would certainly have divided the House against the Second Reading. If I had felt as strongly against the Bill as they have shown themselves in their speeches this evening, I would certainly vote against Third Reading. I think that we in this House, and members of the public at large, are not very far off the mark in coming to the conclusion, if they fail to divide the House against Third Reading, that the speeches they have made are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
In a few moments, they will have the opportunity to put the matter to the test, when they will have the opportunity, if so minded, to vote against the Third Reading, and inasmuch as we have

already been told that there is no Whip on the other side, and that hon. Members are quite free to exercise their own independent and personal judgment, it will not require any conspicuous act of moral courage on their part for them to decide to divide tonight against the Third Reading of the Bill.
Most of the speeches which have been made tonight have been by those critical of the Bill, or opposed to its proposals. But I would like to assure the Home Secretary that he has a very solid backing of opinion in the country in favour of what he is doing. This Bill is favoured and supported by all the main Church bodies and organisations who have been pressing the Home Secretary for some time past to deal with the flood of pornographic trash which has been coming on the market in increasing volume.
The leaders of the Churches who are engaged in dealing with the problems arising from the moral condition in the country, know at first hand of the harmful effects of this literature, especially upon young people, and I cannot understand the suggestions which have been made at various stages in our discussions that there is no evidence to support the view that young people are injuriously affected by obscene literature.
If this is so, it is surprising that hon. Members, including myself, have been receiving for a long time past numerous letters from school teachers, ministers of religion, youth workers, social workers and people of that kind who are in everyday touch with young people and the problems and temptations that they face at present. They have been insistent in urging hon. Members to press the Government to bring in legislation to deal with this particular evil.
I believe that the Home Secretary has done an excellent piece of work in introducing the Bill and in refusing weakening and wrecking Amendments. Someone has said this evening that the Home Secretary is engaged in various cleaning-up operations. If that be true, it is not something of which he has occasion to be ashamed, because at present there are various aspects of our national life which are very much in need of cleaning up.
The Home Secretary, I know, is very conscious of this need and I am quite certain that he has the backing of the majority of the House and of the public


in any Measure that he may think it necessary to introduce to deal with this cleaning-up process.
I am not in the slightest degree impressed by the apprehensions and protests of publishers and booksellers who, after all, have a financial interest in the business. Big profits are being made in it. Publishers and booksellers are entitled to state their views, but we are entitled to take into account the fact that they have a personal financial interest in the business, and we have to decide whether their personal financial interest has to be weighed in the scales against what most of us believe to be the overriding need of the public and the protection of our young people at the present time—

Dr. Horace King: I support the Bill, but I would ask the hon. Member, on reflection, to ask himself whether he is fair in suggesting that any reputable publisher is financially interested in the pornography that we are trying to destroy by the Bill.

Sir C. Black: Not the reputable publishers, no, but I think that some hon. Members opposite would be willing to attribute that adjective "reputable" to some publishers whom others of us might not regard as coming within that category.
I believe that the Bill is supported by an overwhelming majority of the people, and I do not think that the kind of critical speeches that have been made at all stages by hon. Members opposite will be to their advantage or their party's advantage in the future.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Paget: The Bill has been advanced very largely as a protection for youth. I do not believe that pornography is primarily of interest to those who can; it is of interest to those who cannot—not to lusty youth, but to failing age. So let us put that bit of hypocrisy aside.
I do not like the Bill, because it is a Bill to strengthen the law for preventing publication. I do not like laws for preventing publication; I do not want to strengthen them. I believe that censorship is wrong, and for three reasons. The first is that someone has to select—the censor has to select. When one finds a censorship, one finds the oddest selec-

tions. I should have thought that amongst the sadistic trash that has come on to the market, the selection of the eighteenth century frolic "Fanny Hill" was an illustration of the absurdities of selection once one adopts a censorship.
Secondly, I doubt the right of the mature and wise to choose what is good and what is not good for the reading of those whom they decide are immature and unwise. I doubt the right of superior people to decide what they think is good for inferior people, and that is basically what we are doing. Pornography is available to all of us, as much as we want it. Nobody will try to prevent us from seeing anything we want to see.
As the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, we can go to the censor of plays and see all the dirty plays we want. That is because we are superior people. The Home Secretary has doubtless read a good deal of pornography. If he has not, then he! has no business to be here asking for a Bill to strengthen the law for preventing it. I ask him: "Has it corrupted him? Why, then, should he assume that it corrupts other people? Why should we, the superior people, who can see as much of this as we like, make this arrogant assumption that it will corrupt the inferior people?
The argument is almost the same as the argument of those who said that the Bible was all right in Latin, which was the language of the educated, but that it must not be translated into the vernacular because it would corrupt the ignorant who did not understand it. That is the same argument as saying that "Fanny Hill" is all right at 38s. 6d., but is wrong at 3s. 6d. It is an argument which I cannot accept.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman arguing that a father should have no right of censorship over his teen-age son and daughter and no responsibility as to the selection of their reading matter?

Mr. Paget: As the father of a number of teen-aged children, I have never been rash enough to attempt the smallest censorship, nor would I ever dream of doing it, for the simple reason that I am certain that it would not work. Equally. I am certain that the Government's effort will not work. Censorship does not


work. We shall touch only a dribble of the pornography which becomes available, but by forbidding it we make it attractive because it is forbidden. We put a kind of scarcity value on it by limiting the channels which will handle it. By that we push up the profits and we push up its attractiveness—and we prevent nobody who wants it from getting it.
That is the trouble with this legislation. It will fail. It will put up the profits. It is to the advantage of the pornographers, but I believe that it is to nobody else's advantage.

Dr. King: This is the classic argument against any censorship whatever. Will my hon. and learned Friend address himself to the fact that we sought by law to abolish the American horror comic and that we have succeeded in abolishing it?

10.59 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): The Bill is substantially the same Bill as that which was presented to the House on Second Reading, and in winding up the concluding debate, I have not a great deal to add to what I then said. As one who has attempted to be both a writer and a publisher and who is, in fact, a parent. I should like to assure some hon. Members opposite who have spoken that it is my impression that their fears are extravagant. I question whether, in some cases, they have not failed to study the Bill with the due care which it requires, a fault with which, with the utmost respect, I must also charge the correspondent of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). The complaint of Sir Stanley Unwin against the Bill was completely answered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), but, of course, I am not in possession of the other points which Sir Stanley may have made.
The fact that the Bill has passed through its Committee and Report stages with only two Government Amendments and one Opposition Amendment does not prove that the Government, in promoting the Bill, are guilty of any of the wrongs that have

been attributed to us. It certainly does not prove, for instance, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) argued, that the Government are disinterested in literary freedom. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the defence of literary merit remains exactly as it was under the 1959 Act. Nor are the Government seeking to bind the country to what the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) described in Committee as the standards of the Mothers' Union. Personally, I have a good deal more respect than the hon. Member has for the Mothers' Union. We have certainly not adopted the standards which he has attributed to us.
The state of the Bill after the Committee and Report stages shows that it was well drafted for its purpose, which was, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, simply to block up three gaps in the law embodied in the 1959 Act which had been revealed by decisions of the courts. The hon. Member for Stechford rightly recognised that there were imperfections in the 1959 Act, and those are the imperfections which we are seeking to remove.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) made a number of points in his speech, but I think that the one on which he would particularly seek a reply tonight was the matter of disclaimers. I am glad to take this opportunity of describing the system more fully than it was described in the paragraph from the memorandum of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police which the hon. and learned Member quoted. The procedure, briefly, is that where the police have seized articles under Section 3, whether or not on the ground that they are obscene and kept for publication for gain, it is then the normal practice in the Metropolitan Police District for the occupier to be asked whether he wishes to contest proceedings for forfeiture of the articles. It is found, in practice, that the occupier often wishes to avoid the publicity which results from court proceedings. He is then invited to sign a form disclaiming his interest in the articles.
There is no standard form for this purpose. The type of form commonly used was described in the Commissioner's memorandum and is in the minutes of


evidence, so I will give an abbreviated description of how the procedure works and its advantages to the court. I emphasise that this is not a procedure for by-passing the courts. The disclaimer is not, as suggested in Standing Committee, a dishonest document. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North substituted the expression "fiction" later. I would not accept that description, either. It is not a pretence that the occupier had never owned the articles. It is a document which simply disclaims interest for the future, and it has no retrospective operation.
Furthermore, the circumstances of the disclaimer are then brought to the notice of the magistrate who issued the search warrant. If he then decides not to issue a summons under Section 3(3), the material is retained by the police and there are no further proceedings under the Section. Where, however, the occupier of the premises from which the material was seized wishes to contest proceedings for forfeiture, the magistrate is then invited to consider the issue of a summons calling upon him to show cause why it should not be forfeited.
That procedure, as the hon. and learned Member was told in Committee, has the approval of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It is not followed everywhere, but it is used in some other places besides the Metropolitan Police District and it is open to magistrates elsewhere to adopt a similar procedure if they so wish. It is, incidentally, a procedure which is not confined to proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act, as the hon. and learned Member will see on page 78 of the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee.
That procedure is not merely advantageous and acceptable to those concerned. It is practically the only possible procedure in many cases, because the volume of material seized is sometimes so great that it is doubtful whether the metropolitan courts could accept delivery of all the material taken possession of by the police. As, unfortunately, for reasons which have come out in debate, the quantity of such material has been growing in recent years, the disclaimer procedure has certainly not diminished in the scale of its use since 1957.
The essential point which I emphasise is that all obscene material seized under

Section 3 is dealt with only as approved by the court. There is no question of the disclaimer procedure being used by the police, again to quote the hon. and learned Member's words, quietly to achieve their object: in other words, as a means of securing forfeiture without the magistrate's knowledge. It does not have this effect. It seems to us that if the magistrate, the police and the person from whom the obscene articles are seized are all content that the matter should be dealt with in this way, there can hardly be grounds for complaining. I must certainly make it clear to the House that there is no intention of departing from this procedure at the present time.
The hon. and learned Member also referred to the fact that comparatively little information had been given in our debates about the scale and character of the trade in pornography. I refer the hon. and learned Member to another occasion when I gave a fairly detailed description of the trade, in an Adjournment debate on 3rd December, 1963, where he will find information which will usefully supplement the lecture or speech which he reported from the words of the Deputy-Director of Public Prosecutions.
There has seemed to me to be misunderstanding on the part of some hon. Members of the intended effect of the Bill. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said on this point. I had the impression that what the hon. Member was saying he wished that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had set out to achieve was very nearly a verbatim repetition of what I said on Second Reading that we were setting out to achieve. I will repeat two or three sentences from the conclusion of that speech, which I hope, will make the matter clear. I said, on 3rd June:
I wish again to emphasise that the Bill is intended primarily to deal with books and magazines which no reasonable person would judge to have any conceivable literary merit It is not directed to the case of serious literary works of the kind which the original sponsors of the 1959 Act were anxious to protect. The protective provisions written into that Act are left untouched by the present Bill: it neither strengthens nor weakens them. Nor does it alter in any material way the principles on which the law rests, and which Parliament adopted at that time after exhaustive examination of the whole of this intricate subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 1149.]


I would confidently assure the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Member for Stechford—and here I believe that I am echoing the remarks made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King)—that the reputable trade has nothing whatever to fear from the Bill, which contains nothing that was not already in the intention of the 1959 Act.
I believe that the public will support, and does support, the principles underlying the Bill, as I said on Second Reading, and as many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have emphasised in their contributions to the debate. I believe, also, that it will be effective for its purpose.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

ALIENS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.11 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I want to speak briefly on this subject and perhaps I might say that I am very sorry indeed to see the Home Secretary walking out of this Chamber. It is typical of the present Home Secretary's reputation and record that he should stay and speak when the subject is censorship, but leave when we begin to discuss civil liberty.
My concern in this matter arises, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows, from the decision of the Home Secretary in the case of Mr. Bensen. I have found myself exposed to criticism from all sides on this matter, and particularly from some of those who most supported Mr. Bensen, because I accepted the decision of the Home Secretary in this case and took the view that there were general issues involved in this case which needed further exploration.
It seemed to me that in the events of this case two possibilities existed. First, there might be a security risk, in the normal sense of the word, about which I could not know. Or, secondly, there was not such a normal security risk, and

in this case the Home Secretary was extending very considerably the normal and generally understood definition of what constitutes an act "against the national interest" to new ground which seriously threatened civil liberties in this country.
If I may briefly sketch in the background, Britain ratified the European Convention on Establishment, and in doing that in particular ratified Article 3:
1 Nationals of any Contracting Party lawfully residing in the territory of another Party may be expelled only if they endanger national security or offend against any ordre public or morality.
2 Except where imperative considerations of national security otherwise require, a national of any Contracting Party who has been so lawfully residing for more than two years in the territory of any other Party shall not be expelled without first being allowed to submit reasons against his expulsion and to appeal to, and be represented for the purpose before, a competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.
The Protocol makes it clear that any State is entitled to decide for itself the circumstances which constitute a threat to its national security or an offence against public order or morality. In the House on 20th November, 1958, the Home Secretary reiterated something already announced by saying:
Where it is proposed to deport someone who has been settled here for two years or more—otherwise than on the recommendation of a court—since 1956 there has been a right of representation to the Chief Magistrate at Bow Street."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 1349.]
This, presumably, was the way in which Britain was carrying out the provisions of the Convention relating to the right of appeal to a properly constituted authority. The Home Secretary added that, up to that time, 41 aliens had been eligible to make representations in this way and 17 cases had actually been heard.
In a debate a year earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) had suggested that, so serious were the powers that the Home Secretary exercised in relation to deportation or refusal of visas to aliens, there should be a tribunal to inquire into such cases rather than that the whole responsibility should rest upon the Home Secretary alone.


The Joint Under-Secretary of State of the day replied to that suggestion by saying that
So far as the security cases are concerned, I think that, on consideration, the Committee will agree that no Home Secretary could abdicate his direct responsibility for decisions on national security grounds to any other body, however eminent, which had no such responsibility to Parliament. Such cases are very rare. We have not had a single one in the last twelve months"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1957; Vol. 578, c. 601.]
Since this is so, and since the Home Secretary insists on exercising this power on his sole responsibility, he has an even greater duty to safeguard what the Home Secretary of the day described as the "liberal tradition of this country". He has a duty to make certain that he is not infringing civil liberties which have become traditional to our democracy.
I ask the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State how many deportations of aliens on security grounds have taken place during the last three or four years. I ask her in how many cases has the Home Secretary, as he did in the Bensen case, refused the right of appeal to the Chief Magistrate.
I ask the hon. Lady also if she will offer some reassurance to those of us who have been concerned about the principles which govern the Home Secretary's decisions in these cases. May we have an assurance that aliens have the same right of freedom of speech and freedom of association as do British nationals? May we have an assurance that this right extends to any political views, however irrelevant or distasteful or unpleasant others might think them to be?
For example, in particular relation to theories of non-violence and pacifism, may we have a recognition from the Home Office that non-violence in the world today has become a meaningful political theory? We only have to look at what is happening in Mississippi to understand that, in some countries, this has become a meaningful concept. While it may have little application and relevance in a society such as ours, where we have means of democratic determination of policy, nevertheless it is a creed which is interesting, quite legitimately, many of our younger people.
May we have an assurance that an interest in pacifism and the study of nonviolence does not constitute in the mind of the Home Secretary an association which threatens the national good and an assurance that the pacifist groups interested in this concept are not regarded as security risks. I ask whether the Home Secretary is making a correct distinction between political associations, political opinions and freedom to join political organisations on the one hand, and, on the other, illegal acts for which prosecutions could be obtained in the courts. It seems to me since the Bensen case that this distinction may not be being made and for this reason I ask for a statement of policy.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I agree with the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) that it is most unfortunate that the Home Secretary is not present to listen to this debate, and that he has not condescended to see either the hon. Lady or myself when we have attempted to have a discussion with him on this matter. We think that it is of fundamental importance, not so much for the specific case of Mr. Bensen, as the hon. Lady mentioned, but the general principles that it raises.
I do not like the Home Secretary's attempt to deport Mr. Bensen without any justification for his action. Deliberately or accidentally the right hon. Gentleman tried to mislead me when I questioned him about it on 4th June. I asked him to state the reasons for asking Mr. Bensen to leave the country and he said that
his continued presence here would not be in the public interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th June, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 188.]
I understand that when he gave me this answer he was thinking of the Aliens Order, 1953, paragraph 20 of which says:
A deportation order may be made … if the Secretary of State deems it to be conducive to the public good to make a deportation order against the alien.
But it does not say anything about the public good or the public interest in the European Convention on Establishment, which supersedes the Aliens Order, 1953. The part of it which the hon. Lady has just quoted—the grounds for expulsion-are clearly set out in Article 3 of that


Convention. I should like to know why the Home Secretary did not state his true reasons when he replied to my Question.
I should like an answer to the question raised by the hon. Lady as to what constitutes a threat to national security. Is it membership of a certain organisation, or more than one organisation? If so, could we have a list of them? Does the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary agree with the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in a letter which appeared in The Guardian last week, in which he said that Dr. Bensen had
abused this country's hospitality and I, for one, will be glad to see the back of him. You write about democracy Respect for the law, whether by foreigners or British subjects, is a condition of its survival".
Do the Government agree with the Secretary of State for Education and Science? If not, let us have a clear statement to that effect, because it is a horrifying thought that it is quite possible for somebody like the Secretary of State for Education and Science to become Home Secretary in a future Government.
Finally, on a point which I have taken up with the Under-Secretary, and on which she has disagreed with me: does it follow that the right to submit reasons against one's expulsion is lost when the deportation order is made on the ground of national security? I do not believe that it does, because the European Convention on Establishment, in Article 3, as quoted by the hon. Member for Lanark, says:
Except where imperative considerations of national security otherwise require
there shall be this right of representation. I take that to mean that the imperative considerations of national security are those which would arise in the representations which a person to be deported makes before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
If the Home Secretary had to adduce secret reasons for his decisions to deport this man he would have to refuse this right, but I can conceive of circumstances in which he might think that the expulsion of a man was justified and in which he could still justify them, without infringing secrecy, before a tribunal of this nature. Certainly if membership of the Committee of 100 or any similar pacifist

organisation is to be taken to be a valid reason for expulsion there is no reason why he should not have to justify that before the court.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I seek to underline one of the many serious points which are raised by this case. The Home Secretary takes his stand on the ground that he cannot reveal the security reasons why he exercises his right to deport a person from this country. We may disagree with that on many different grounds, as has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), or question it, but the claim of the Home Secretary in this particular case is invalidated by the statement made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
He has given what he believes to be the reason why Mr. Bensen is to be deported. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not just someone contributing his point of view; he is a member of the Cabinet. Therefore, it is the duty of the Home Secretary either to secure the repudiation of the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or to tell us his reason, in which case we would think it not a valid one for expelling Mr. Bensen from this country. It would be a very serious matter if Mr. Bensen were expelled by the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary not giving the reason when the only public reason given was that by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and if Mr. Bensen returned to his country with the slur on him of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about him. That might have serious consequences for his future political life and his future life in general in the United States.
I therefore hope that in replying to the many other serious matters affecting the liberties of people who come to this country the Under-Secretary will reply in detail to that point. I join with my hon. Friend in expressing grave concern and protest that the Home Secretary did not himself remain to give the reply, when he insists that this matter is his province alone.

11.27 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): I think that the hon. Members


who have spoken have been most unjust to the Home Secretary. They are well aware that it is a convention of this House that Under-Secretaries reply to Adjournment debates. It is in fact one of our perquisites to be here late at night in order to reply to those quite important debates. We are a very powerful trade union and hon. Members would do well not to try to take any of our privileges from us.
I have, of course, listened carefully to everything hon. Members have said and I recognise the seriousness with which they approach this problem. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) asked some specific questions about figures and I am sure that she would not expect me to give the answers to those tonight. I shall see what I can do to get the figures for which she asked. I hope that I shall be able to answer her other questions and to give the assurances which she sought. I should like to put the whole debate into perspective and very briefly to outline the provisons for admitting aliens to this country.
The Aliens Order, 1953, provides that every foreign passenger entering the United Kingdom must obtain leave to land from an immigration officer. This grant of leave to land may be subject to conditions including a time limit on the foreigner's stay. The Order empowers the Home Secretary to grant or to refuse extension of stay, to vary or cancel conditions upon which leave to land was granted. The great majority of foreigners coming here are admitted on a temporary basis and for periods subject to conditions which are related to the purposes for which they seek leave to land.
For instance, students are accorded normally as long a stay as they need to take advantage of our educational facilities, but they are expected to return to their own country when their studies here have been completed. Foreign au pair girls are allowed to stay here up to two years under au pair arrangements and if at the end of that period they wish to go on staying here in some other capacity, for instance as students or for employment, an application to do this will be considered on its merits. Foreigners coming here on Ministry of Labour permits are normally landed for 12 months in the first instance and this period may be extended in consultation with the

Ministry of Labour up to four years, at which time the conditions attaching to the foreigner's stay would normally be removed and the foreigner would pass into the resident alien population.
However, about three-quarters of the foreigners entering this country are short-term visitors, holidaymakers, business visitors and relatives paying family visits. These are normally landed for periods of three months which may be extended to six on good reasons being shown. In all these cases, the grant of an extension of stay is subject to the foreigner in question not being undesirable or objectionable in any way.
It is, of course, as hon. Members will appreciate, in spite of what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has said, not possible to give a short definition of what constitutes undesirability. Nor would it be desirable to give lists of organisations which might come under consideration. Each case must be considered on its own particular facts and an assessment made of the alien's behaviour since being admitted to this country.
In the debate on the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill on 20th November, 1958, as hon. Members know, the then Home Secretary instanced security risk as an example of the sort of activity to which objection could properly be taken. He did not imply, however, that it was the only possible ground of objection and in the debate on that occasion he said, referring to foreign visitors, that such people are always welcome so long as they are not open to objection on security or other grounds.
Concern is often voiced in this House—and hon. Members have voiced concern this evening—lest the power to refuse an alien an extension of his stay and in the last resort to enforce his departure, may be used to suppress political opinions objectionable to the Government of the day. This is the main anxiety underlying the plea of the hon. Member for Lanark tonight.
I would assure hon. Members that such fears are completely groundless. No objection is taken to foreign visitors or residents holding political ideas, such as Communism to which most of us here are antipathetic, or to their giving


expression to such views in any proper manner. There are, however, certain necessary limitations. For instance, as was stated as long ago as 1933, in reply to a Question by Mr. Tom Williams, an alien here would not be permitted to advocate the overthrow of our institutions by violence or, in pursuit of his political objectives, to advocate and organise disorder and rioting.
It has also been found necessary to deal firmly with Communist peace-front propaganda. It was in this context that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), in the course of a debate in this House on 3rd May, 1961, drew a distinction between the open promulgation of Communist doctrine by people and organisations whose attachment to the doctrine is evident, and the activities of front organisations which camouflage their true aims in misleading descriptions and try to organise people throughout the world by advocating peace and friendship and other things we all want.
In the course of the debate on that occasion, my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that a certain decision to refuse visas was in no way directed against the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It is no part of this country's immigration practice to refuse to admit genuine pacifists coming here for genuine and overt pacifist business—and this I hope answers one of the hon. Lady's questions—or to refuse to extend a foreigner's stay because he is engaged in pacifist activities, provided that he does not break the law or incite others to do so.
I hope that the hon. Lady will find that what I have said is satisfactory and I am sure she will understand that it is not right for me to go beyond that at this stage. The hon. Member for Orpington and the hon. Lady raised the question of Article 3 of the European Convention. As hon. Members know, the question of whether an extension of stay should be granted or refused for a particular alien or whether, in the last resort, the alien's departure should be enforced is one left, in our practice and conditions, to the Home Secretary, who may find it necessary to act on information

that he is not prepared to make public. The propriety of this is fully recognised in this country's international obligations.
Article 3 of the European Convention on Establishment contemplates that foreigners may be expelled if it is found that they endanger public security or offend against ordre public or morality, and the Protocol to the Convention provides that each contracting party shall have the right to judge by its own national criteria the circumstances which constitute a threat to national security or an offence against ordre public or morality. Indeed, the Protocol goes on to say that the concept of ordre public is to be understood in the wide sense generally accepted in Continental countries, and that a national of another party to the Convention may be excluded for political reasons. As I think will be clear from what I have said, the practice in the United Kingdom is considerably more liberal than this wording of its international obligations might seem to contemplate.
I would say to the hon. Gentleman that in a letter from me which he will have received this morning, I hope I have set out the position very clearly and very fully—more clearly, and certainly more fully, than I have time to do tonight. I have nothing to add to the very full statement that has been made, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we believe that our practice and principle are well within both the spirit and the meaning of this Convention.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) mentioned the specific case of the deportation of Mr. Bensen. He and I and other hon. Members have had full opportunity to discuss this. Hon. Members are fully aware of the Home Secretary's stand in this matter, and the reasons he has put forward. I am sure that the hon. Member does not seriously wish me to comment on reports in the Press or letters from other hon. Members, but I will certainly say this to him. We have discussed this. He is well aware of the situation whereby the Home Secretary has full responsibility for the announcement and the making of this decision, and I have no intention tonight of making any comment at all on anything that the right hon.


and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) may have said in a letter to his constituent—

Mr. Foot: Does the hon. Lady mean to tell the House that she does not intend to comment on whether she agrees with a statement made by a member of the Cabinet on the specific case we are discussing tonight?

Miss Pike: Yes. I have made it clear that the reasons given by the Home Secretary were the reasons for the deportation in this case, and I have no intention of making further comment on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.